Appeal No. 2004-0500
Application No. 09/488,783
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome by
any convincing arguments from Appellant, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1 based on the combination
of Gray and Ramamurthy is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent apparatus claim 3, and its dependent
claims 4 and 5, we sustain this rejection as well. Appellant
reiterates the arguments made with respect to method claim 1, which
arguments we found to be unpersuasive as discussed supra.
Lastly, we also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 14 and 15 based on the combination of Gray and
Ramamurthy. In asserting the patentability of these claims,
Appellant emphasizes that the claim language requires register
access in a “single” burst transaction, a feature allegedly missing
from the Ramamurthy reference. Our interpretation of the
disclosure of Ramamurthy, however, coincides with that of the
Examiner, i.e., the burst access operation described, for example,
at column 3, lines 35-50, can be reasonably interpreted as being a
single transaction. This interpretation is reinforced by
Ramamurthy’s description (column 3, lines 13-15) of burst access
rule operation in which registers are accessed without addresses.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007