Appeal No. 2000-1282
Application No. 08/813,140
while in the second portion raw and encoded/corrected
data are written and read, respectively. Thus, the first
portion is used as a workspace for error
encoding/correcting, and the second portion is used as a
buffer.
Appellants argue (brief, page 9) that “DENISSEN uses his
memory only as a buffer,” whereas appellants use “a memory
both as a workspace for error correcting/encoding, and as a
buffer for raw and corrected/encoded data.” As a second point
of distinction, appellants argue (brief, page 13) that:
[T]he present claims further clearly distinguish
DENISSEN in that the present claims recite a memory
divided into two portions which are used in an
alternating fashion: one portion is used for error
correction or error encoding while the other portion
is used for storage of new data and output of
previously corrected or encoded signals. DENISSEN
does not allocate the two halves of his memory 1.12
in such a fashion. DENISSEN allocates space in two
halves of memory 1.12 to hold previous or newly-
arrived data, based on the results of previous error
corrections and previous identification(s) of
unreliable data, meaning that at any point in time
data is allocated essentially randomly between two
half-memories (see Fig. 3C), rather than in an
alternating fashion as is recited in the present
claims.
We agree with appellants’ arguments. Thus, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 1 through 3, 8 through 12,
25 through 27 and 31 through 34 is reversed because the two-
sectioned memory 1.12 in Denissen does not operate in an
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007