Appeal No. 2003-0965
Application No. 09/030,829
make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these
claims.
The question before us is, what would Appellants'
specification have taught one having ordinary skill in the art?
To answer this question we find the following facts:
1. Appellants' specification, page 25, lines 29-30, states
that, "the timing of outputting the signal ACK can be set
continuous . . . for each word."
2. Appellants' specification, page 33, lines 19-33, shows
that a "word" is equivalent to a "read data" as found in
claim 1.
3. The specification, page 21, lines 29-30, states that,
"the HDC outputs the response status signal to the MCU
for each access." We read "access" as "read data access"
or "word access" since the FIFO at line 30 is word based
(see line 25).
4. The specification, page 22, line 2, states that, "[t]he
response status signal is generated for each access."
Again we read "access" as "read data access" or "word
access."
5. The specification, page 22, lines 9-10, states that,
"the response status signal is applied to the MCU upon
each data transfer." We read, "transfer" as "word
transfer."
6. The specification, page 33, lines 21-24 and 29-32,
shows that in the continuous access method (see line 5)
the timing of the response status (ACK) signal is
discrete for each read data.
We find that nowhere in Appellants' specification, except
for 1 above, is there anything about "the timing of the output of
the response status being continuous for each read data."
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007