Appeal No. 95-1527
Application No. 07/862,066
to increase access speed to the memory. Column 8, lines 59-
64. Thus, Lam motivated one of skill in the art to add a pre-
charging transistor as a presetting means in Figure 7's prior
art read-out circuit.
Because Lam suggested the modification to the admitted
prior art in order to obtain fast memory access, the claimed
invention would have been obvious. It does not matter whether
the prior art motivation is the same as Appellant’s motivation
as argued by Appellant. Lam’s suggestion is clearly
applicable to an arrangement with the conventional selection
means shown in
Figure 7.
Appellant argues that Lam lacks the recited first
selection means. Appeal Brief at 4. We fail to see how such
a lack would vitiate Lam’s suggestion to precharge the output
of the conventional selection means shown in Figure 7.
Moreover, we disagree with Appellant’s argument. Lam
discloses the recited first selection means. Column 5, lines
15-23. Lam’s presetting means (precharge transistor 78)
presets the output of Lam’s selecting means (word line select
transistor 74) just as in Appellant’s invention. We see no
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007