Appeal No. 2002-1994
Application No. 09/364,449
1945 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner,
778 F.2d 775, 781, 227 USPQ 773, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
After reviewing Thatcher, we find that the Examiner
presents sufficient evidentiary support to establish a prima
facie case of anticipation. We disagree with Appellants’
argument that the claimed plurality of storage units and groups
is not the same as Thatcher’s bits and words because a word is a
unit of information constituting a consecutive sequence (brief,
page 9). Even if Appellants’ assertion is correct, claim 4 does
not preclude a consecutive sequence for the storage units within
groups of storage units because the claim merely requires a
plurality of storage units which further comprises a plurality
of groups of storage units for storing data signals. Therefore,
the claimed “remapping” of data signals in a second sequence of
data signals in the plurality of storage units also reads on
organizing a cache line of Thatcher (col. 1, lines 55-60) which
is performed by:
[G]rouping each corresponding bit of each byte in a cache
line of data together, and expanding the grouping with an
organization formed by one bit from a same byte within each
word.
We also find that, contrary to Appellants’ position (reply
brief, page 2), the Examiner has correctly characterized the
claimed “reading a data value from a corresponding storage unit
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007