Appeal No. 2004-0940
Application No. 09/908,146
Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to each of the appealed independent claims 1,
7, 14, 18, 20, and 22, the Examiner attempts to read the various
limitations on the disclosure of Ooishi. In particular, the
Examiner points (Answer, pages 3 and 4) to the description at
column 5, line 48 through column 6, line 5 of Ooishi as
corresponding to the claimed data strobe masking or blocking
features of each of the appealed independent claims.
After reviewing the Ooishi reference in light of the
arguments of record, we are in general agreement with Appellant’s
position as stated in the Brief. In particular, we agree with
Appellant (Brief, page 5) that Ooishi provides no disclosure of
the masking of a data strobe signal in response to the generation
by data masking logic of an end of transfer signal. While the
Examiner asserts (Answer, page 4) that Ooishi’s description of
the initiation of a self refresh operation, which the Examiner
asserts would block any additional data transfer, at the end of a
burst cycle corresponds to the claimed masking feature, we find
no support in the cited portion of Ooishi, or elsewhere in
Ooishi, that would support this conclusion. The Examiner must
not only make requisite findings, based on the evidence of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007