Appeal No. 2005-2284
Application No. 09/748,589
Appellants agree that Hayashi teaches implementing ECC
functionality in software, but contend that it does not teach
implementing the ECC functionality in software “in a data storage
system” (brief-page 9).
We, again, agree with the examiner. As explained by the
examiner, at pages 10-11 of the answer, “since the memory device
and its controller may be considered part of the data storage
system, the ECC is implemented in software in the data storage
system; however, even if the memory device is interpreted as
separate from the data storage system, the controller or CPU is
part of the data storage system (and thus also the software, and
the ECC functionality).”
The examiner’s explanation appears reasonable to us and we
find nothing from appellants to convince us otherwise.
Accordingly, we will also sustain the rejection of claim 136,
Group III, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to Group IV, claim 137, this claim requires that
the ECC functionality “is implemented in a file system in the data
storage system.” The examiner relies on Anderson, specifically
Figure 31, column 22, line 64 to column 23, line 10 and column 24,
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007