Appeal No. 1996-2481 Page 18
Application No. 07/828763
reference would have suggested the limitations of claim 20.
Next, we address the appellants’ arguments regarding claim 21.
Claim 21
Regarding claim 21, the appellants argue, “[t]here is
absolutely no teaching or suggestion in the Harari patent that
data in blocks should be swapped to effect balancing of erase
cycles.” (Reply Br. at 4.) The examiner replies, “the
rejection did not state that there was an explicit suggestion
within Harari that blocks should be swapped.” (Supplemental
Examiner’s Answer at 5.) He adds, “[t]he test is what Harari
would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art ....” (Id.)
We cannot find that Harari teaches or would have
suggested the swapping of claim 21. The claim specifies in
pertinent part following limitations:
identifying a first block that has been erased;
identifying a second block that has been erased
a fewer number of times than the first block; and
swapping the data in the first block with the
data in the second block.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007