Appeal No. 96-1439
Application 08/338,976
the overall system or an operation associated with “at least
one” of an instruction, which features are clearly taught or
clearly inferred from an artisan’s perspective from the
identified teachings and showings in Missios. We therefore do
not agree with appellants’ assertions that the reference
teaches away from the features recited as identified by us in
our earlier discussion.
To the extent Missios clearly teaches a testing procedure
to determine which of a plurality of clock periods and error
is occurring for specific identification purposes, it clearly
would have been obvious to the artisan to have performed
similar operations with respect to actual instruction
sequences to determine which of a plurality of instructions
caused a given error or operation associated therewith. Such
a check point retry operation known in the prior art as
identified at page 2 of appellants’ specification discussing
the prior art is analogous to the features of Missios.
Furthermore, it goes without saying that the feature of
retrying operations in the claims that recite such a feature
is clearly analogous to the repeating operations associated
with the network in Missios. Indeed, the known self-test
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007