Appeal No. 2002-2237 Page 10
Application No. 09/336,046
"searching a content addressable memory, which contains at least
a portion of the second entry, for a reference to the first entry
in the linked list" i.e., using backward pointers in a linked
list of a content addressable memory. Moreover, from steps 27-29
(col. 7, lines 28-35) we find that Holtz teaches or suggests
pointing to the next entry and not to the prior entry, when using
a content addressable memory. Further, we note that Holtz
discloses in the embodiment of figure 9 that the input and output
gates may not be required (col. 9, lines 28-39). However, we
find no teaching or suggestion in this embodiment of Holtz
regarding the use of backward pointers. In addition, because in
the tree structure of Holtz, (figure 2), addresses 10 and 11 both
point to the same address 9, we find that Holtz does not teach or
suggest that the existence of a pointer within a valid entry is
sufficient identification of the valid entry as being uniquely
the second entry, which would occur in a true linked list, in
contrast to the tree structure disclosed by Holtz. From all of
the above, we find that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 1, and claims 3 and 21 dependent therefrom, is
reversed. We additionally reverse the rejection of independent
claim 4 as the claim includes similar limitations as claim 1 with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007