Appeal No. 97-0614
Application No. 08/212,465
row address decoder 18, and data and address buses D0-D7, A0-A8
are connected with the memory arrays.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102
Claims 1-12
Appellants have not specifically argued the
patentability of any specific dependent claim, indicating how it
defines appellants' invention over the prior art. Accordingly,
appellant's claims stand or fall together. In re Nielson, 816
F.2d 1567, 2 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
After consideration of the positions and arguments
presented by both the examiner and the appellants, we have
concluded that the rejection should not be sustained.
There is but one issue in this case. The examiner
contends that two or more memory arrays 2 of Pinkham may be
2
considered as one memory plane . Appellants argue that Pinkham
does not disclose a plurality of memory planes with the planes all
fabricated on a single semiconductor substrate.
2 The designation “N” in “N memory arrays” which is in the claims
is not defined in the claims. Accordingly, it is presumed that
“N” may be 1.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007