Appeal No. 2006-1303
Application No. 10/000,667
Claims 6, 7, 9, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 (b) as anticipated by
Davis.
Claims 10, 11, 13-15, 18, 19, 21, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as
unpatentable over Davis in view of Colwell.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of appellant and the
examiner.
OPINION
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that the four corners of a single
prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or
inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without
undue experimentation. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
The examiner’s position with regard to independent claims 6 and 22 is that Davis’s
Figure 6, depicting a reduced instruction set computer (RISC) type architecture, comprises an
interleaved instruction memory 126 including a plurality of independently addressable memory
banks (220 and 230 shown in Figure 7) for storing a set of logically successive instructions
(noting that successive instructions are alternately stored in memory banks 220 and 230). The
examiner contends that the first memory bank 220 stores a first instruction of the set of logically
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007