Appeal No. 2003-1111
Application No. 09/164,088
in concluding that Narayan’s alleged “aid in aligning memory”
(answer, page 6) justifies the combination, the Examiner attempts
to forge a combination of unrelated disclosures related to memory
addressing, memory initialization methods and a decoder circuit.
Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that it would have been obvious to
combine Yoshioka with Narayan and Barth, as held by the Examiner,
the combination would still fall short of teaching or suggesting
the claimed dependency code and the page entry table containing
attribute entries that include such dependency code.
Accordingly, as the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima
facie case of obviousness, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 1-30 over Yoshioka, Narayan and Barth.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007