Appeal No. 2006-0721 Page 5
Application No. 10/113,458
the appeal of claims 1-4, 8-11, 15-18, and 22-24 and claim 5 as the sole claim on which
to decide the appeal of claims 5-7, 12-14, 19-21, and 25-30.
A. CLAIMS 1-4, 8-11, 15-18, AND 22-24
With the aforementioned representation in mind, rather than reiterate the
positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we focus on the point of contention
therebetween. The examiner finds, "MROMB Note does disclose the limitation 'if the
first set of resources (i.e. address range) is changed (i.e. host relocates the base
address originally assigned to the IOP BAR), changing (i.e. reprogramming), by the first
device, the second set of resources (Section 4.1 , Second Paragraph).'" (Examiner's
Answer at 10.) The appellants do not address the examiner's specific application of
Section 4.1 of the MROMB Note. Instead, they merely underline limitations is claim 1
and allege, "These specific combinations of limitations of the independent claims are
nowhere disclosed or suggested in the MROMB Note." (Appeal Br. at 12.)
"In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the representative claim at issue to determine its scope. Second, we
determine whether the construed claim is anticipated." Ex parte Pittaro, No. 2005-
2057, 2006 WL 1665401, at *2 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2006).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007