Ex Parte 4918645 et al - Page 34




         Appeal No. 2006-2217                                                       
         Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,789 and 90/007,420                       

         contains general page mode memory controller teachings (e.g.,              
         Fig. 3).  One of ordinary skill in the art seeking to implement a          
         page mode of memory access would have been led to consider the             
         page mode teachings of Bruce.                                              
              Patent Owner argues (Br49):                                           
              Bruce teaches clearly that the utility of its specific page           
              boundary detection methods depends on the unique                      
              characteristics of graphics display systems.  See Bruce at            
              col. 1:47-60.  Therefore, the Bruce patent - according to             
              its own disclosure - does not address the needs of                    
              non-graphics display systems for the detection of page                
              boundaries.                                                           
              We disagree.  The cited portion of Bruce does not state that          
         the method for page boundary detection and crossing is limited to          
         the disclosed graphics system.  One of ordinary skill in the art           
         would have found Bruce highly relevant to the inventor's problem           
         of page boundary detection and crossing and, therefore, within             
         the scope of the prior art.                                                

         Claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-20                                         
              The examiner has determined amended claims 2 and 13 to be             
         patentable and confirmed the patentability of claims 3-5, 7-11,            
         14-16, and 18-20 over the additional reference to Churchward,              
         U.S. Patent 4,691,303.  For completeness, and because we find              
         patent owner's arguments unpersuasive, we explain why independent          
         claims 2 and 13, and, hence, their dependent claims, are not               
         taught by Churchward, relied upon by the reexamination requester.          
         Patent owner's arguments that one skilled in the art would not             
         have been motivated to modify the refresh technique of "2164A"             
         because it teaches its own refresh schemes and the technique of            
         Churchward is incompatible therewith (Br44-46), are not                    
         persuasive.  One of ordinary skill in the art would have been              
         motivated to substitute a known refresh technique for its                  
         disclosed advantages.                                                      
              Claim 2 contains all of the limitations of claim 1, plus the          
         following limitations:                                                     
                   means for generating a memory refresh request signal at          
              predetermined intervals.                                              
                   means for counting each of the refresh request signals;          
                   means, coupled to the refresh request signal counting            
              means, for comparing a value of the counted refresh request           
              signals to a predetermined threshold value and for                    
                                       - 34 -                                       





Page:  Previous  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007