Appeal No. 95-3388
Application 08/242,993
Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548,
220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
Appellants argue on pages 5 through 7 of the brief
that neither Dhong nor the sentences found on page 1, lines
11-21, of the Appellants' specification teaches or suggests an
EPROM, EEPROM, flash, non-volatile, or like device is inter-
changeable. Appellants argue that Dhong teaches a DRAM device
and does not suggest using these other memory technologies.
Appellants further argue that the sentences found on page 1,
lines 11-21, are not an admission that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have reason to modify the Dhong system by
substituting the Dhong DRAM with these other memory technolo-
gies mentioned on page 1 of the Appellants' specification.
Upon our review of Appellants' specification, we
find that Appellants' statements are only an admission that
these other memory technologies are known, but does not sug-
gest that these memories are interchangeable. We fail to find
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007