Appeal No. 2003-1240
Application No. 09/304,964
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 7) and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper
No. 15) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No. 14) and
the Reply Brief (Paper No. 16) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which
stand rejected.
OPINION
Section 102 rejection
Appellants argue, with respect to instant claim 2, that the rejection neglects to
point out where Wu discloses a “scheduler.” (Brief at 11-12.) Although the rejection
purports that all the claims are “clearly anticipated” by Wu, the rejection does not, as
appellants note, point out a clear disclosure of the scheduler requirements. The
examiner does, however, provide reasoning in the “Response to Arguments” section of
the Answer in support of why the artisan would have recognized that the apparatus
disclosed by Wu inherently contains a scheduler that meets the requirements of instant
claim 2.
“[I]f there is no request from the memory which stores data cells, as argued by
the Appellant[s], the processor 200 in Fig. 8 would have no idea how to allocate time
slots to data memory that have data cells; thus some of the time slots might be
allocated to a memory that don’t have data cells to [be] processed; in other words, there
will be some empty cell timeslots in the transmission cycle.” (Answer at 7.) The
examiner does not identify the “memory” to which the arguments refer. In view of the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007