Appeal No. 1996-3095
Application 08/346,311
"does not disclose the storage of vertical parity bits in a row separate from the rows in which data is
stored" (Brief, page 4). Specifically, we find that Osman discloses (see Figure 3 and the accompanying
text at column 3) that "data bits are stored in all of the memory cells that lie in columns C through C in1 N
arrays A through A ," and "parity bits are stored in all of the remaining memory cells" (column 3, lines1 X
44 to 47). Because we agree with appellants that no parity bits are stored in a row that does not also
include other data, we will reverse the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 to 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Appellants correctly state that the examiner admits that "[n]ot particularly taught by Osman is
that one’s memory space is a subset of a larger memory space" (Answer, page 4). We agree that such
a feature of a protected memory space is neither taught nor would have been suggested by Osman.
We cannot agree with the examiner’s circular reasoning that "the largest subset of a set is the set itself;
therefore, the partitioning of data locations into sets does not distinguish the invention" or that "the
grouping of data into subsets is well known" (Answer, page 4). The examiner has provided no
reference teaching or suggestion for such a proposition. Accordingly, we find that the examiner has
failed to make a prima facie case that the collective teachings and/or suggestions of Osman would have
taught or suggested the protected memory space having separate vertical parity rows as claimed in
claim 1 on appeal.
In light of the foregoing, the differences between the subject matter recited in the claims and the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007