Appeal No. 2004-1425
Application 10/113,506
still within the non-volatile memory device in the same manner as
disclosed in appellant’s own invention [answer, pages 13-14].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 22,
25, 31-34, 41-44 and 51-53. We agree with the examiner’s
findings that the decoding circuit of Lawman is within the non-
volatile memory device in the same manner that the decoding
circuit of appellant’s own invention is within the non-volatile
memory device as shown in Figure 2. The non-volatile memory 1520
and the decoding circuit 1540 of Lawman are both included within
the non-volatile memory device 1510 as found by the examiner.
We now consider the rejection of claims 22-26, 31-36, 41-
46 and 51-53 as being anticipated by Collins. The examiner has
indicated how he reads the claimed invention on the disclosure of
Collins [answer, pages 6-11]. With respect to representative,
independent claim 22, appellant argues that the rejection is
improper because Collins does not disclose a decoding circuit
within a non-volatile memory device as claimed. More
specifically, appellant argues that the cryptographic processor
110 of Collins is located separate from memory devices 124 and
126 and that the DES engine 250 of Collins is located separate
from any of the memory devices [brief, pages 16-17]. The
examiner responds that the element 107 of Figure 1 of Collins
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007