Appeal No. 1996-2481 Page 19
Application No. 07/828763
In short, the claim recites swapping data of a block with data
of another block that has been erased a fewer number of times
to level erase counts.
As aformentioned, the examiner admits that Harari does
not explicitly suggest the swapping. The examiner,
furthermore, has not identified any suggestion in the prior
art as a whole for the swapping. To the contrary, such
swapping of data is counterintuitive. The number of erasure
cycles that a EEPROM can endure is finite. Harari, col. 2,
ll. 4-6. Because each block is erased as part of the claimed
swapping process, which increases the erase count of each
block, (Reply Br. at 4), it is not apparent that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform
the swapping. For the foregoing reasons, the examiner failed
to show that Harari would have suggested the swapping of claim
21. Therefore, we find that the examiner’s rejection does not
amount to a prima facie case of obviousness. Because the
examiner has not established a prima facie case, the rejection
of claim 21 over Harari is improper. Therefore, we reverse
the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007