Appeal No. 2004-0500
Application No. 09/488,783
references in light of the arguments of record, we are in general
agreement with the Examiner’s position as stated in the Answer.
Initially, Appellant contends (Brief, page 8; Reply Brief,
page 2) that neither Gray nor Ramamurthy teaches or suggests the
grouping together of registers that must be frequently read or
written. As pointed out by the Examiner, however, Gray discloses
(column 8, line 19 through column 9, line 14) the grouping together
in separate groups with sequential addresses those registers which
are to be read, those which are to be written, and those which are
to be read and written. Similarly, the Examiner points to column
3, lines 15-18 of Ramamurthy which describes the grouping of
registers to be accessed with successive addresses. We also find
no error in the Examiner’s reference to the disclosures of Gray and
Ramamurthy which suggest that the grouped registers are
“frequently” accessed, in particular, column 2, lines 5-10 and 65-
67 of Ramamurthy.
We also find to be unpersuasive Appellant’s argument (Brief,
page 9; Reply Brief, page 2) that, while recognizing that
Ramamurthy discloses a burst write access to grouped registers,
asserts that no burst read access is disclosed as required by the
language of appealed claim 1. In our view, while Ramamurthy chose
to illustrate the burst access procedure at column 1, line 1 by
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007