Appeal No. 96-1439
Application 08/338,976
mechanisms described by appellants in the admitted prior art
in the paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2 of the specification
as filed clearly is closely aligned with the teachings in
Missios as they relate to testing at a first or normal clock
speed followed by a subsequent lower clock speed to determine
the specific nature of the defects causing the error.
Finally, the related appeal identified earlier in
footnote 2 in this opinion relates to an appeal stemming from
an application which is a continuation of this application.
That application in the related appeal appears to have been
voluntarily filed. The appeal in that application is later
filed than this one, and because the claims in that appeal
relate to variations of the subject matter claimed in this
appeal, we hereby remand this application for the examiner to
consider on the record the issue of obviousness-type double
patenting in any further proceedings as to this application as
it relates to the other application.
To recap, we have sustained the rejection of claims 1, 5,
6, 11 to 13, 15, 17 and 18 and have reversed the rejection of
the remaining claims, namely claims 2 through 4, 7 through 10,
14,
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007