Ex Parte 4918645 et al - Page 31




         Appeal No. 2006-2217                                                       
         Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,789 and 90/007,420                       

         EOC signal when asserted (active).  One of ordinary skill would            
         have had sufficient skill to interface these two sets of signals.          
              Patent Owner also argued that the rejection improperly                
         reduces the invention to a mere "idea" (RR11):                             
                   Further, relying on the isolated reference to                    
              Multibus II (page 3-15) and general description of                    
              advantageous features in the 82C02 [sic] (page 3-1) to                
              support the particular combination of the 82C02 [sic] with            
              the iPSB, despite no teaching of a detection of the signal            
              (SC2*) that allegedly corresponds to the end of access                
              signal, improperly reduces the claimed invention to an [sic]          
              mere "idea" of an end of access signal and a page mode, and           
              thus, does not consider the claimed invention as a whole.             
              Reducing a claimed invention to an "idea," and then                   
              determining patentability of that "idea" is an error.  Jones          
              v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1528, 220 USPQ 1021, 1024 (Fed.              
              Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,            
              727 F.2d 1524, 1528 [sic, 721 F.2d 1540, 1547-48],                    
              220 USPQ 303, 308-09 (Fed. Cir. 1983).                                
              The rejection is not based on finding the page mode and an            
         end of access signal to be the "gist" or "thrust" of the                   
         invention.  "Multibus II" discloses the protocol for a memory              
         replying agent, which detects non-final and final (end-of-cycle)           
         memory accesses with the SC2* signal, but does not disclose how            
         the memory and memory controller is implemented.  One of ordinary          
         skill in the art seeking to implement a memory and memory                  
         controller for a memory replying agent in "Multibus II" would              
         have been motivated to select a commercial memory and memory               
         controller with a page mode of access, such as "51C64H" and                
         "82C08," for the known speed advantages of page mode.  "82C08"             
         detects the start and end of page mode access.                             
         Claims 6 and 17                                                            
              Claim 6 contains all of the limitations of claim 1, plus the          
         following limitations:                                                     
                   means for detecting a memory page boundary having                
              inputs coupled to the memory column address and an output             
              expressive of a state of the memory column address that is            
              indicative of a memory page boundary; and                             
                   means, responsive to the output of the memory page               
              boundary detecting means, for deasserting the row address             
              strobe signal, providing a memory row address expressive of           
              another page of data, and reasserting the row address strobe          
              signal.                                                               
                                       - 31 -                                       





Page:  Previous  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007