Appeal No. 2006-2407
Application No. 09/802,857
OPINION
As expanded upon here, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of all claims on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Arguments are presented to us in the brief and reply
brief only as to independent claim 13 and dependent claims 19 and 20. Therefore,
the remaining dependent claims fall with our consideration of their parent
independent claim 13.
Of the two embodiments in Sagane in figures 1 and 3, the examiner relies
principally upon the showing in figure 3 which has been modified by the teachings
in the paragraph bridging columns 6 and 7. The teachings there indicate the
capability of the showing in figure 3 of processing sequentially a plurality of
program bugs according to the structure set forth in figure 3 as well as the modified
ability to process plural program bugs by plural key structural elements such as the
comparator 8, the correction address register 21 and the correction data register 22.
Although this teaching is not explicit as to the manner in which they would be
interconnected with respect to the other elements in figure 3, it appears clear to the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007