Appeal No. 2005-2284
Application No. 09/748,589
In the instant case, the fact that Leedy may teach the use of ECC
circuitry in a stacked memory structure would not, in and of
itself, dissuade artisans from employing such ECC circuitry in the
memories disclosed by Zhang and/or Johnson and appellants have
offered no evidence that it would.
Thus, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 126-
134, the claims indicated by appellants as constituting Group I,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Turning to the claims of Group II, i.e., claims 135 and 139-
141, the examiner rejects these claims on the same grounds as the
rejection of claims 126-134.
In addition to relying on the arguments, supra, with regard to
non-combinability of the references, appellants specifically argue
that Figure 2c of Leedy teaches the use of ECC circuitry in a
memory controller circuit in the memory device - not in a data
storage system, as required by independent claim 135, noting that
neither Zhang nor Johnson teaches any type of ECC functionality,
much less ECC functionality in a data storage system (see page 8 of
the brief). Appellants argue further that there is no suggestion
in the applied references to move the ECC circuitry from the memory
device to the data storage system, specifically pointing to column
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007