Ex Parte BOGIN et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2003-0836                                                             
          Application No. 09/205,086                                                       


                                        BACKGROUND                                         
                Appellants' invention is directed generally to a memory                    
          controller including a refresh timing circuit that generates                     
          clock pulses (specification, page 4).  An understanding of the                   
          invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary independent                 
          claim 1 and dependent claim 3, which are reproduced as follows:                  
                1.   A computer system comprising:                                         
                a memory; and                                                              
                a memory controller, wherein the memory controller includes                
          a refresh timing circuit for generating clock pulses used to                     
          trigger memory refresh events.                                                   
                3.   The computer system of claim 2, wherein the refresh                   
          timing circuit further comprises:                                                
                a clock generator for generating the clock pulses;                         
                a first counter coupled to the clock generator;                            
                a storage register coupled to the clock generator and the                  
          counter; and                                                                     
                a comparator coupled to the clock generator, the counter and               
          the storage register.                                                            
                The prior art reference of record relied upon by the                       
          Examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:                                    
          Direct Rambus Technology Disclosure (DRTD), pgs. 1-16,                           
          (October 15, 1997).                                                              
                Claims 1-28 and 38-49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                       
          § 102(b) as being anticipated by DRTD.                                           

                                          Page 2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007