Appeal No. 2002-1578
Application No. 08/814,928
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In
re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881(CCPA 1981); In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F. 2d 1091, 1096, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
In other words, while Appellants contend (Brief, page 16) that
Leak lacks a teaching of providing a status register with a bit
indication representative of an operation suspend status, such a
bit indication status register is clearly taught by Terada.
Similarly, although Appellants argue (id.) that Terada fails to
teach the suspension of a write operation, this teaching is
specifically provided by Leak.
We further find to be unpersuasive Appellants argument (Brief,
page 16) in support of the contention that the Examiner has failed
to provide proper motivation for the proposed combination of Leak
and Terada so as to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
In our view, Appellants’ arguments notwithstanding, the fact that
the Terada reference is concerned with testing of flash memory
devices does not mitigate its clear teaching of providing a status
register with a bit indicator to represent the status of an
operation.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007