Appeal No. 95-3377
Application No. 07/883,162
The examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art:
Hannoyer 4,497,025 Jan. 29, 1985
Okano et al. (Okano) 5,182,459 Jan. 26, 1993
(filed Jan. 18, 1991)
Chau et al. (Chau) 5,200,963 Apr. 6, 1993
(filed Jan. 26, 1990)
Sato 55-90000 July 8, 1980
(Japanese Kokai Patent)
OPINION
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hannoyer in view of Sato, Chau, and Okano.
We reverse for the reasons given by Appellant amplified
as follows.
The examiner states correctly that it was known in the
art to enhance the validity of data against degradation by
storing multiple copies of data for mutual comparison.
Examiner’s Answer at 11. It was also known in the art to
store complements of each copy and to test whether each stored
complement is in fact in complementary relation to each copy.
Chau at column 6, lines 4-16; Specification at 3, lines 2-19.
Further, it was known to increase resiliency against multiple
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007