Appeal No. 2003-1111
Application No. 09/164,088
brief (Paper No. 22, filed September 30, 2002) and to the reply
brief, (Paper No. 25, filed January 16, 2003) for Appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The Examiner asserts that Yoshioka teaches most of the
recited features in claim 1 including “at least one dependent
bank structure, by teaching in column 7, line 30, of the register
page being dependent upon the software algorithm” (answer, page
3). However, the Examiner identifies the same dependent bank
structure having at least a sense amplifier as missing in
Yoshioka (answer, page 6). The examiner relies on Narayan for
showing store access to a dependent adjacent bank and on Barth
for disclosing a sense amplifier to conclude that a skilled
artisan would have found obvious to combine with Yoshioka in
order “to aid in aligning memory accesses” (id.).
Appellants argue that neither the software replacement
algorithm of Yoshioka relates to a memory device with a
dependence bank structure nor any part of the reference discloses
the claimed dependency code (brief, page 9). Appellants further
assert that the proposed combination of the references lacks a
proper motivation since the references have no relevance to the
issue of tracking the state of a page in a memory device having
independence bank structure (brief, page 11). Appellants also
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007