Appeal No. 96-2820
Application 08/227,705
469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With regard to the rejection of claim 81, the
Examiner holds that Childers teaches the claimed invention
except for locating a sense amplifier between memories, and
that any of Hannai or Miyabayashi or Schutz or Matsui teach
the advantages
of locating a sense amplifier between memories.
Reviewing claim 81 we note that the claim recites
that the sense amplifier is located between two memories of
different sizes, i.e. the "first memory having . . . M rows",
and the "second memory having . . . J rows . . ., where J does
not equal M,. . .". Reviewing the secondary references, we
find that the sense amplifiers are always located between
memories of the same size. Appellants urge that the secondary
references would motivate one skilled in the art to dispose
equal memories on the two sides of the sense amplifier to
obtain the best average capacitance and sense times. Thus,
Appellants urge, it would not be obvious to place a sense
amplifier between memories of unequal size as claimed.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact
that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007