Appeal No. 2000-0257
Application No. 08/532,886
find only the suggestion to record/indicate if inadequate power is supplied to the memory
which would corrupt the data stored therein.
The examiner maintains that there is not support for appellant’s argument that the data
is determined to be invalid even with adequate power is applied at all times. (See answer
at page 4.) We agree with the examiner that this limitation is not expressly recited in this
manner in the language of independent claim 19, but we find sufficient support in the
monitoring for a disconnection and storing this fact in a state memory for indication to the
system that the memory has been detached and the data therein is not to be trusted.
Therefore, there is a basis in the language of independent claim 19 for this argument. The
examiner further explains the motivation for the combination and the interpretation of the
teachings of the references at pages 5 and 6 of the answer. The examiner continues to
rationalize that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to store the fact that the
memory was disconnected from the main frame and that the memory relies on the back up
power to maintain the memory above the threshold voltage. (See answer at pages 5-6.)
We find no support in Matsushita or Saitoh for the examiner’s conclusion that validity is
judged based upon the disconnection of the memory. Therefore, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness, and we cannot sustain the rejection of
independent claim 19 and its dependent claims 20-27. Independent claims 28 and 34 and
their dependent claims contain similar limitations concerning the storage of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007