Appeal No. 2006-2011
Application No. 09/996,720
Appellants respond that the write counts in Bruce are not an amount of memory, even if
they are stored in memory [reply brief, page 5].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 14 as being anticipated by Bruce.
We agree with the examiner that Bruce discloses a data structure comprising a
computer readable storage 50 that contains a count 46 or 48 for at least one event
descriptor, total and incremental writes in this case. We do not agree with appellants
that the storage of these counts fails to meet the claimed invention. Claim 14 recites
that an amount of memory corresponding to each event descriptor is provided. We
agree with the examiner that the storage of write counts in Bruce requires an allocation
of an amount of memory to retain this value.
With respect to claims 30 and 32, appellants argue that the portions of Bruce cited
by the examiner fail to disclose the number of times data was corrected on a memory
card. They note that the fact that Bruce may prevent data from having to be corrected
is not a disclosure of accessing information regarding a number of times data is
corrected from any memory card [brief, page 7]. The examiner responds that since
Bruce teaches preventing data from having to be corrected, then Bruce teaches that the
number of times that data is corrected is zero [answer, pages 28-29]. Appellants
respond that the number of times data is corrected in Bruce, even if zero, is not stored
in a memory on the Bruce device [reply brief, page 5].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 30 and 32 based on Bruce
for essentially the reasons argued by appellants in the briefs. As noted by appellants,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007