Appeal No. 2002-1319 Page 17
Application No. 08/974,971
the examiner, that would teach or suggest using a predetermined
sequence of write cycles to modify the size of the boot block
code section. We find that although Oh and Boehmer disclose the
interchange ability of using hardware and software for changing
options in a reconfiguration register (Boehmer) or a delay
compensation register (OH), that because DeRoo is directed to a
hardware-based approach to prevent reconfiguring the memory with
software, we agree with appellant (brief, page 11) that “DeRoo
purposefully uses the hardware-based approach so that the memory
cannot be reconfigured by software. Thus, DeRoo explicitly
teaches away from the Examiner’s proposed modification.
Modifying DeRoo to use a software-based approach would clearly
undermine DeRoo’s express purpose of preventing software
reconfiguration of the memory.” Accordingly, we find that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 29. The rejection of claim 29 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is therefore reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 42-48 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maher in view of DeRoo, and
further in view of Oh or Boehmer. We begin with claim 42. We
reverse the rejection of claim 42 for the following reasons.
Maher is relied upon to show the CPU, expansion bus adapter,
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007