Appeal No. 2004-1425
Application 10/113,506
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this appeal
the claims will all stand or fall together as a single group
[brief, page 6]. Consistent with this indication appellant has
made no separate arguments with respect to any of the claims on
appeal. Accordingly, all the claims before us, within each
rejection, will stand or fall together. Note In re King, 801
F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
We consider first the rejection of claims 22, 25, 31-34,
41-44 and 51-53 as being anticipated by Lawman. The examiner has
indicated how he reads the claimed invention on the disclosure of
Lawman [answer, pages 3-6]. With respect to representative,
independent claim 22, appellant argues that the rejection is
improper because Lawman does not disclose a decoding circuit
within a non-volatile memory device to decode stored encoded
sequences of values as claimed. More specifically, appellant
argues that the decoding circuit of Lawman is situated separate
from the non-volatile memory [brief, pages 14-15]. The examiner
responds that the FPGA 1510 in Lawman is a non-volatile memory
device and the decoding circuit 1540 is located within this non-
volatile memory device. The examiner notes that the decoding
circuit of Lawman is separate from the non-volatile memory but
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007