Appeal No. 2005-2284
Application No. 09/748,589
The examiner states that
Clearly the ECC circuitry of Leedy is not specifically
required for a 3-D memory with bonded layers, but rather
as well known in the art allows for correction of errors
which may become more prevalent in any higher density
memory circuit, such as any 3-D memory. Thus it would
have been obvious...to add ECC circuitry to the memories
of Zhang and Johnson, because it was known to add this
circuitry to the support element of high density 3-D memory
arrays so that they could benefit from it’s [sic, its] error
correction capabilities (answer-page 4).
Appellants argue that Leedy fails to teach the recited memory
array and that the skilled artisan would not have turned to either
Zhang or Johnson to cure this deficiency, citing In re Ratti, 270
F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959) for the proposition that a
combination would not have been obvious within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103 if the combination requires a substantial
reconstruction and redesign of the elements in one of the
references or a change in the basic principle under which the
element in a reference was designed to operate (brief-page 6).
Applying Ratti to the instant case, appellants assert that
since Leedy discloses a memory device that uses ECC and a stack of
individual integrated circuits assembled after manufacturing and
the primary focus of Leedy is the stacked integrated circuit
memory, with ECC being merely an ancillary feature, in order to
yield the instant claimed subject matter, Leedy’s stack of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007