Appeal No. 1998-0063
Application No. 08/057,805
support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper No.
25, filed April 24, 1997) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 27, filed
September 17, 1997) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter we note that appellants have
indicated on page 4 of the Brief that all of the claims are to
stand or fall together except for claim 15. We agree with
appellants' grouping and, therefore, will treat claim 15 as
one group and the remaining claims as a second group with
claim 1 as representative.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art reference, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 4 and 7 through 17.
Claim 15 calls for "a data control circuit which creates
a data relief area in said storage area if and when it detects
that data can not be successfully written into a defective
area in said storage area." Harari discloses a built-in spare
portion for replacing defective cells. In other words, Harari
does not create a data relief area when and if a defect is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007