Appeal No. 1997-4092
Application No. 08/181,404
because a dynamic RAM requiring refresh is less expensive than
EEPROM (a nonvolatile memory) it’s application to a
nonvolatile memory such as EEPROM is clearly recognized from
the teachings of Hollerbauer (see columns 1-2)” is an
admission that Hollerbauer discloses a volatile memory cell
array (i.e., a dynamic RAM device) as opposed to a nonvolatile
memory cell array. For this reason, we will not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1 through 26 and 301
through 32. After all, to anticipate a claim, a prior art
reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed
invention, either explicitly or inherently. See Glaxo Inc. v.
Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed.
Cir. 1995).
All of the claims on appeal state that each of the flag
cells stores refresh status data for a corresponding refresh
block. According to the examiner (Answer, page 6),
“Hollerbauer clearly shows the . . . steps of storing refresh
status data in a nonvolatile flag cell array 32-34, selecting
1It appears that the examiner’s reasons for rejecting the
claims on appeal are more supportive of an obviousness
rejection than an anticipation rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007