Appeal No. 1999-0011
Application No. 08/428,812
These claims are rejected over Bossen and Price. We take
claim 8 as the representative of this group. The Examiner
asserts, Answer at page 6, that these claims are also rejected
under the same rationale applied against claims 1 to 7.
Appellants' argue, Brief at page 11, that "[a]s discussed with
respect to claim 1, Bossen discloses using EX-OR gates to
generate independent copies of each data bit from the data bit
and checkbits. In contrast, claim 8 recites the use of 'm
parallel one bit decoders . . . [used in conjunction with]
Hamming error detecting and correction codes . . . .' As
discussed above, Hamming decoding includes parity generation,
syndrome generation, error location, and error correction. A
Hamming decoder also combines specific combinations of inputs
to decode a data word. Consequently, Bossen neither teaches
nor suggests the present invention as recited in claim 8."
Appellants further asert that even though Price discloses the
use of a syndrome generator and a syndrome decoder, Price is
concerned with providing two levels of error detection and
correction. According to Appellants, there is no mention in
Price of parallel one bit decoders using Hamming decoder
detecting and correcting codes in either level. We agree with
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007