Ex Parte Jackson et al - Page 17

              Appeal  2007-2532                                                                    
              Application 10/608,791                                                               
              therefore consider only arguments for the patentability of claims 1 and 4, all       
              other arguments having been waived.  37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) ("the failure         
              of appellant to separately argue claims . . . shall constitute a waiver of any       
              argument that the Board must consider the patentability of any grouped               
              claim separately.")                                                                  
                    Jackson's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 over              
              Krieger are essentially the same as those raised against the rejection over          
              Stasiak.  (Br. at 12–13.)  Here, where Krieger expressly describes memory            
              cells in which the resistance of memory elements changes the memory state            
              (Krieger at 2, ¶ 19; FF 20), we find that the weight of the evidence favoring        
              anticipation outweighs the evidence to the contrary.  Jackson's argument that        
              Krieger fails to disclose a reversible memory state change (Br. at 13) is            
              misplaced, as there is no such limitation in claim 1 or in any of the                
              dependent claims.  Patentability cannot be premised on a limitation that is          
              absent from the claimed subject matter.  In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213        
              USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).  Accordingly, we hold that Jackson has failed to              
              prove reversible error by the Examiner.                                              
                    Claim 4 depends on claim 1 via claims 2 and 3.  Claim 2 requires that          
              the memory element have a first memory state having a high resistance and a          
              second memory state having a low resistance.  Claim 3 requires that the              
              memory state transition be triggered by one or more listed agents.  Claim 4          
              requires that the organic polymer layer contain dopants that are not active in       
              the first memory state and active in the second memory state.  Jackson               
              argues that Figure 5 and the associated text, on which the Examiner relies,          
              neither describe nor suggest such a memory.  Krieger shows in Figure 5 a             
              memory cell having an active layer 3 and a passive layer 5.  (Krieger at 3,          

                                                17                                                 

Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013