Appeal No. 2004-1425
Application 10/113,506
corresponds to the claimed non-volatile memory device and the
decoding circuit 110 is located within this non-volatile memory
device. The examiner notes that the decoding circuit of Collins
is separate from the non-volatile memory but still within the
non-volatile memory device in the same manner as disclosed in
appellant’s own invention [answer, pages 14-16].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 22-26,
31-36, 41-46 and 51-53. We agree with the examiner’s findings
that the decoding circuit of Collins is within the non-volatile
memory device in the same manner that the decoding circuit of
appellant’s own invention is within the non-volatile memory
device as shown in Figure 2. The non-volatile memory 124 and the
decoding circuit 110 of Collins are both included within the non-
volatile memory device 107 as found by the examiner.
We now consider the rejection of claims 27-30, 37-40 and
47-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant’s only argument in
response to this rejection is to repeat the fundamental argument
considered above with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102. Since this argument was decided adversely to appellant
above, and since no other arguments have been presented, we
sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims for the same
reasons discussed above.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007