Appeal No. 1999-0418 Page 9
Application No. 08/517,036
been desirable in Arnett's memory cell such that teachings
from the prior art would have suggested the combination. The
addition of Argos, Rohrer, Yamazaki, and Agostinelli does not
cure the defect. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of
claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 10 as obvious over Arnett in view of
Argos and Paz; the rejection of claims 2, 8, 9, and 11 as
obvious over Arnett in view of Argos and Paz further in view
of Rohrer; the rejection of claim as obvious over Arnett in
view of Argos and Paz further in view of Yamazaki; and the
rejection of claim 5 as obvious over Arnett in view of Argos
and Paz further in view of Agostinelli.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007