Appeal No. 2003-0031
Application No. 09/240,176
the language of claims 1, 5, and 8 which requires that buffer
read access of at least one channel is restricted to only a
respective buffer. We also agree with Appellant (Reply Brief,
page 7) that the Examiner’s reference to channel 0 of Appellant’s
disclosure, which is described as writing to a plurality of
buffers, as supporting the Examiner’s position is misplaced. As
pointed out by Appellant, it is channels 1, 2, and 3 that have
restricted read access to a respective buffer, while channel 0
controls the storage of data in one of a plurality of buffers.
In view of the above discussion, since the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 5, and 8, as well as
claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-11, and 14 dependent thereon, is not
sustained.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 12, 13, and 15 based on Osborne.
These claims differ slightly from independent claims 1, 5, and
8 discussed supra by requiring that “each of said channels is
able only to write to or read from at least one of said plurality
of buffers.” As disclosed by Appellant in the example
illustrated in Figure 4(a), channel 0 is able only to write to at
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007