Appeal No. 95-0907
Application 07/774,757
device under test, the apparatus comprising test
sequencing means for generating and supplying to the
device under test a test sequence of messages,
including messages requesting messages to be
transmitted by the device under test in response
indicating whether functions of predetermined
definition are present or absent in the device under
test, and for analyzing messages transmitted by the
device under test in response, to determine conformity
or not with the standard application protocol.
Opinion
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Rattan.
We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Rattan,
and the appellant's disclosed prior art.
The appellant has argued claims 1 and 4-11 as a first group,
claims 2 and 12 as a second group, and claims 3 and 13-20 as a
third group. Claim 1 is the only independent claim.
At the outset, we reject the appellant's argument that Wang
is nonenabling prior art reference. First, it is noted that Wang
has not been relied on by the examiner to show much at all. With
respect to Wang, the examiner stated (answer at 3-4):
Wang teaches a protocol testing technique which
provides to a device under test a sequence of
operations to drive the protocol implementation through
a set of tests. This will determine whether a product
under test conforms to a protocol standard.
The examiner has relied on Wang to show nothing more
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007