Harari’s sector remapping is conditional, in that it only occurs after a defective sector is detected
and would not satisfy the written description requirement for prolonging life (Recon. 4-5).
There are several problems with Yamagami’s argument. First, we did not attribute
reliability to the sector remapping embodiment. We said in our decision that “as Yamagami
discloses that an object of the invention is to provide a Flash EEprom memory system that
remains reliable after enduring a large number of write cycles, it is implicit in the disclosure of
the involved Harari application that there are successive write operations.” Yamagami does not
argue that Harari does not perform successive write operations, or that the sector remapping is
not performed in two consecutive write operations. Rather, Yamagami argues that the
remapping (conversion) is not done every time there is a write operation.
Yamagami made this argument in its reply 1 (Reply 1 at 6, lines 4-6) and in its opposition
to Harari’s preliminary motion 1. However, in deciding Yamagami preliminary motion 1, we
did not consider Yamagami’s reply or Yamagami’s opposition to an unrelated motion. Because
Yamagami’s preliminary motion 1 failed to set forth a prima facie case for entitlement to relief,
Harari’s opposition to Yamagami’s preliminary motion 1 was not considered. Consequently,
Yamagami’s reply need not have been considered. That Yamagami made the argument in an
opposition to an unrelated motion is without merit. We will not, at this late stage in the
proceedings, consider arguments Yamagami made in an unrelated opposition to an unrelated
motion. Moreover, as stated above, incorporation of arguments is not permitted.
In any event, we note that Harari claims 63 and 64 are not limited to performing a
conversion for every write operation. The claims are broad enough to include performing a
conversion at some point in time between two consecutive write operations. Furthermore,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007