Appeal No. 2005-1295
Application No. 10/376,682
Claims 1-5 and 8-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated
by Koizumi.
Claims 6 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Koizumi and Talreja.
The examiner indicates that dependent claims 7 and 15 would be allowable if
rewritten in independent form.
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Dec. 9, 2003) and the Examiner’s Answer
(mailed Jun. 1, 2004) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (filed
Apr. 30, 2004) and the Reply Brief (filed Jul. 30, 2004) for appellants’ position with
respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
The examiner has applied Koizumi against claims 1-5 and 8-13 in a § 102
rejection. Consistent with appellants’ suggested grouping of claims, arguments
presented, and rules in effect at the time of submission of the Brief, we select claim 1 as
representative. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2003).
We note that appellants’ specification (at 5) cites the Koizumi patent, stating that
Koizumi has an OTPROM and EEPROM located on the same array, and uses one high
voltage power supply. The present invention, in contrast, has separate arrays that “can
be addressed separately and simultaneously.”
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007