Appeal No. 1999-2747
Application 08/757,979
board is not under any greater burden.
As Appellants have indicated on page 3, section VI, of
the brief that claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 20 and 21
form a single group, and do not include a statement that the
claims of this group do not rise and fall together, the
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13,
14, 18, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
As regards claims 2-3 and 11-12, these claims recite that
the failing element recited in their parent claims is a memory
bit line or a memory word line. The Examiner admits that 13
both bit lines and word lines are at a granularity level
larger than the cell which is used in Lefsky, and points to
McClure where memory access typically occurs at a granularity
level larger than that of a single cell. The Examiner then
posits that it would take less circuitry to flag faulty memory
at either the word line or bit line levels than it would do so
at the cell level. The Examiner then asserts that it would
have been obvious to have chosen an error detection and
bypassing mechanism which operates at the claimed granularity
13Examiner's Answer, page 6.
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007