Ex parte HEDBERG et al. - Page 10




              Appeal No. 95-3658                                                                                                                          
              Application 07/777,877                                                                                                                      

              replacement algorithm on the failure data; (2) the BFRAM is structurally different from the address circuitry                               

              in Eaton which is the structure the rejection proposes to be on the chip.                                                                   

                       The examiner's response to the arguments (Examiner's Answer, pages 4-6) confuses rather than                                       

              clarifies the rejection.  We have addressed the rejection as we understand it from the statement of the                                     

              rejection.  We understand that the disclosed and claimed invention stores addresses of failed rows and                                      

              columns, not locations of stored cells (Reply Brief, pages 2-5).  However, Harns discloses storing both the                                 

              location of stored bits in the two-dimensional BFRAM and the address of failed rows and columns in                                          

              RAMs 171 and 172.  Appellants do not address the teaching of identifying defective columns and rows                                         

              in Harns.  The examiner discusses that appellants' invention stores the address of the faulty cells in a two                                

              dimensional failed address register and since the BFRAM is a two dimensional array this suggests that the                                   

              examiner proposes putting a BFRAM structure on the chip.  It appears that the examiner may have been                                        

              confused by appellants' arguments about the BFRAM.  The fact is that Harns identifies the addresses of                                      

              columns and rows selected for replacement in the same manner as the disclosed invention and the rejection                                   

              is that it would have been obvious to store these defective addresses in registers on the chip as taught by                                 

              Eaton.  The fact that Harns uses a BFRAM to hold an image of the faulty cells as intermediate structure                                     

              in the test system for identifying faulty columns and rows is not precluded by claim 1.                                                     

                       Appellants discuss the structure disclosed in the specification corresponding to the various means                                 

              of claim 1 (Brief, page 11).  However, appellants do not raise the question of claim interpretation under                                   

              35 U.S.C.  112, sixth paragraph.  We presume that the structures in Harns and Eaton that perform the                                       

                                                                      - 10 -                                                                              





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007