Appeal No. 2006-0889
Application No. 10/174,918
answer) that item 600 of Cheney is an arbiter circuit. We see no basis in Cheney for this
finding.
The Examiner then argues at page 7 of the answer “a memory arbiter would have
been obvious in view of the memory management unit [600] of Cheney.” However, the
Examiner fails to explain how this (without more) would then result in the arbiter
functionality recited in the claim. Ultimately, this and other alternative theories of the
rejection, not on appeal before this Board, set forth in the Examiner’s response all fail for the
same reason. If the Examiner wishes to introduce any new grounds of rejection based on the
same references, then the new rejection must be formally stated as set forth in
37 C.F.R. § 41.39. Alternatively, the Examiner may reopen prosecution.
For the reasons above, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
II. Rejection of Claims 1-4 Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
We make the following new grounds of rejection using our authority under
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 1 contains a period in the middle of the claim. It is unclear whether claim 1 ends at
the first or second period in the claim.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007