Appeal No. 2003-1111
Application No. 09/164,088
argue that the combination would not have resulted in the claimed
structure as the Examiner provides no technical principle for
such combination (id.).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that the claim merely requires “a dependency code of a page of a
memory device” without any correlation between the dependency
code and the dependence bank structure (answer, page 8).
Furthermore, the Examiner questions the features to which the
claimed “dependence” refers to and characterizes the dependence
bank structure as an internal structure (answer, page 8) which is
similar to Yoshioka’s dependence of a memory bank contents on the
replacement algorithm used within the bank (answer, page 9).
Appellants respond by arguing that the limitation of
“dependency code” is actually recited in the claim and cannot be
interpreted to mean something other than what is intended since
it has a meaning which is well supported in the disclosure (reply
brief, page 4). Appellants further concludes that based on its
intended meaning, the claimed “dependency code” and the “SV bit”
of Yoshioka cannot be the same (reply brief, page 5).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To reach a conclusion of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007