Appeal No. 1999-0011
Application No. 08/428,812
the Appellants' position. In our view, whereas it was known
to use Hamming decoders in general for error correction and
error checking, the specifics claimed in claim 8, have not
been shown by the Examiner to be met by the combination of
Bossen and Price. Therefore, the Examiner has not established
a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 8 over Bossen and Price. Since
claims 9 and 10 depend on claim 8 and contain at least the
same limitations as claim 8, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 9 and 10 over Bossen and Price.
Claim 11
The examiner has rejected claim 11 over Bossen and Price.
The examiner rejects claim 11 on the same basis as claim 8, at
page 6 of the Answer. Appellants argues, Brief at page 13
that "Bossen does not divide a data word into modules and use
a bit from each module to form a parity bit. Moreover, Bossen
does not locate or correct the errors using Hamming error
detecting and correcting code." Moreover, Appellants argue,
id., that "there is no indication that Price divides the data
word into modules and uses a particular bit in each module to
form a parity bit. Thus, neither Price nor Bossen teach or
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007