Appeal No. 1996-2481 Page 15
Application No. 07/828763
1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With this
in mind, we analyze the appellants’ arguments regarding claims
19, 20, and 21 seriatim.
Claim 19
As noted by the examiner, (Supplemental Examiner’s Answer
at 4), the appellants fail to address specifically the
rejection of claim 19. They have shown no error in the
rejection. Therefore, we affirm the rejection. Next, we
address the appellants’ arguments regarding claim 20.
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, the appellants argue, “[t]here is
nothing inherent in selecting storage that would require the
selecting of multiple blocks, each with enough space to store
the data.” (Reply Br. at 3.) They add, ”[t]he Harari patent
also neither teaches nor suggests that an erase count should
be used when identifying a block for allocation.” (Id.) The
examiner responds, “[o]n the contrary, a data set larger than
available blocks is inherently stored in multiple blocks.”
(Supplemental Examiner’s Answer at 4.) He adds, “[t]he
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007