Appeal No. 1999-0011
Application No. 08/428,812
recited limitations. Appellants argue, Brief at page 14, that
"[b]ecause claim 12 recites error correction means including m
parallel one bit decoders that correct errors in accordance
with a Hamming error detecting and correcting code, all of the
arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8 apply to claim 12
with equal force. Consequently, Bossen in combination with
Price does not render claim 12 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103."
We agree with the Appellants' position. The examiner has not
shown how the combination meets the claimed limitation of
"second means for detecting multiple errors in each of said
modules in accordance with a Hamming error detecting and
correcting code; and third means, including m parallel one bit
decoders, for correcting multiple errors in each of said
modules in accordance with said Hamming error detecting and
correcting code." The examiner has not pointed out where
these specific teachings are shown in the combination of
Bossen and Price. In our view, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness in the rejection
of claim 12. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 12 and its dependent claims 13 and 14.
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007