Appeal No. 2005-2284
Application No. 09/748,589
and appellants’ arguments have not convinced us of any error in the
examiner’s case.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 126 and
130 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness
in showing that either one of Zhang or Johnson discloses the
claimed subject matter but for the disclosure of the ECC “circuitry
carried by the support element.” Appellants do not dispute this.
The examiner then offers Leedy to provide for the deficiency of the
primary references, by showing that Leedy teaches ECC circuitry
provided in a 3-D memory with bonded layers, allowing for
correction of errors which may become more prevalent in any higher
density memory circuit, such as any 3-D memory. The examiner then,
quite reasonably in our view, concludes that it would have been
obvious to add ECC circuitry to the memory of Zhang or Johnson,
because it was known to add this circuitry to the support element
of high density 3-D memory arrays so that they could benefit from
error correction capabilities.
Yet, while the examiner’s case is built on the modification of
either one of the primary references (each showing the basic
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007