Appeal No. 2003-2108 Application No. 08/881,123 never outputted to “subsequently deactivate the generated acknowledgment signal if an access actuation signal is deactivated” (claims 1 and 15). For this reason, the anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 15 is reversed. Turning to claim 2, if the acknowledgment signal and the access request signal in Craft are the same signal, then we agree with the appellant’s arguments (brief, page 10; reply brief, pages 4 and 5) that Craft can not “generate and transmit the access request signal to said memory controller in response to the generation of the corresponding acknowledgment signal.” Thus, the anticipation rejection of claim 2 is reversed. The anticipation rejection of claim 5 is reversed because we agree with the appellant’s arguments (brief, pages 11 and 12; reply brief, pages 5 and 6) that Craft does not disclose “deactivating the acknowledgment signal after the access actuation signal is deactivated” because the two noted signals are a combined signal in Craft. The anticipation rejection of claims 6, 16 and 17 is reversed because Craft does not disclose activating an acknowledgment signal after generating an access actuation signal (brief, pages 11 and 12). As indicated supra, the two signals are combined into a single signal in Craft. 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007