Appeal No. 2004-2199
Application No. 09/896,043
appeal sets forth relatively straight forward, even basic memory
mapping relationships of memory addresses. The examiner’s
reliance upon the mapping/relocating operations in Gulick to the
subject matter of the wherein clause of each of the independent
claims 1, 10 and 19 on appeal appears to be overcomplicated and
strained at best. The required relationships do not appear to be
taught in Gulick according to what we understand the examiner’s
reasoning to be. The reference does not appear to teach a true
pointing-type of addressing function recited in the claims on
appeal as well.1
1Even though we reverse the rejection of the claims on appeal as stated
by the examiner in the answer, according to the rules of practice in force at
the time the reply brief was filed, it appears plainly to us that the
appellants have completely reargued the outstanding rejection of the clams on
appeal at pages 2 through 9 in an entirely new manner from that which has been
set forth in the principal brief on appeal, and has chosen to argue the
dependent claims at pages 9 through 11 of the reply brief where all claims
were stated to stand or fall together in a single group at the bottom of page
4 of the principal brief on appeal and no arguments as to the dependent claims
were presented in the principal brief on appeal. The only arguments presented
that are a true reply to the examiner’s positions set forth in the answer are
those contained at pages 11 through 13 of the reply brief. The provision of
the rules providing for appellants to reply to an examiner’s answer does not
indicate that appellants may entirely reargue their positions from those set
forth in the principal brief on appeal and set forth new arguments. In other
words, the provision does not permit appellants to rebrief the issues.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007