Appeal No. 2002-1994
Application No. 09/364,449
selecting a subset of said plurality of storage units
for reading in response to an address therefor.
The Examiner relies on the following reference in rejecting
the claims:
Thatcher et al. (Thatcher) 6,085,289 Jul. 4, 2000
(filed Jul. 18, 1997)
Claims 4-8, 11, 14, 15, 17 and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Thatcher.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 9, mailed April
17, 2002) for the Examiner’s reasoning and to the brief (Paper
No. 8, filed February 11, 2002) and the reply brief (Paper No.
10, filed June 24, 2002) for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that Appellants indicate that claims
4, 5 and 8 constitute one group, claims 6 and 7 stand or fall
together, claims 17 and 18 stand or fall with one another, while
claims 11, 14 and 15 stand or fall together (brief, page 8). We
observe that Appellants have, in the arguments section of the
brief, provided separate arguments for each group, as required
by 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (July 1, 2000). Therefore, we will
consider Appellants’ claims as standing or falling together as
argued in the brief and limit our consideration to claims 4, 6,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007