Appeal No. 95-2861
Application 08/062,237
the obviousness rejection of claims 4 through 7 based upon the
combined teachings of Toshikazu and Masuoka is reversed.
In the other obviousness rejection of claims 4 through 7,
Muller is cited by the examiner (Answer, page 4) because it
"teaches several programming and erase schemes for floating gate
memory devices." On the same page of the Answer, the examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to
combine the teachings of Muller with those of Toshikazu and
Masuoka "in order to know how to program and erase the device."
In view of the noted structural differences between the claimed
device and the devices in Toshikazu and Masuoka, and the fact
that Muller is merely cited for its programming and erasure
teachings, this obviousness rejection of claims 4 through 7 is
likewise reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 4 through 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007