Appeal No. 2002-1319 Page 4
Application No. 08/974,971
briefs along with the examiner's rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's
answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we affirm-in-
part. We begin with the rejection of claims 23-28 and 30-41
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by DeRoo.
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose
every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We turn to claim 23. The examiner sets forth reasons
(answer, pages 4-6) as to why the examiner considers claim 23 to
be anticipated by DeRoo. Appellant assert (brief, page 6) that
DeRoo fails to disclose a non-volatile memory device where a boot
code section of the memory array is configured to store boot
code, as recited in claim 23, because common memory device 704
does not have built in boot block protection. Instead, DeRoo
uses a separate device (HUI 700) to "emulate boot block
protection." Appellant further argues (id.) that HUI 700 is not
“a control unit configured to control storage of data within and
retrieval of data from the memory array, wherein the control unit
is further configured to vary the size of the boot code section
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007