Appeal No. 1998-1119
Application No. 08/482,924
Moreover, as noted above, Knauft also teaches a
completely different storage process and the use of
multiple bits, a parity bit and a marking bit.
Appellants argue (brief, page 14) that "[t]he only commonality
in the two references is that both use multiple bits to
correct memory errors.” According to appellants, the
disclosed and claimed invention only uses a single parity bit
that is stored with the data word (brief, page 8). Another
argument made by appellants is that the motivation presented
by the examiner for making the modification to Burghard “does
not explain how to selectively choose process steps from
Knauft and interpose those process steps on Burghard that
stores multiple parity bits and not a marking bit and a parity
bit” (brief, page 15). Finally, appellants argue (brief, page
15) that “the only motivation or basis for the modifications
to the references suggested by the Examiner is Applicants’
specification.”
We agree with appellants’ arguments. The examiner has
failed to set forth a convincing line of reasoning for finding
that the specifically recited steps in the claims on appeal
would have been obvious over the teachings of Burghard and
Knauft. Even if the disparate teachings of the references are
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007