Appeal No. 2000-0671
Application No. 08/909,507
reasonably said that the body 30 is “coupled to the socket” 32, then Jarwala does not
removably couple body 30 to one of the plurality of interfaces. This is so because if
Jarwala’s circuit board 10 corresponds to the claimed “integrated circuit” which is part of
“at least one card,” and STEM body 30 corresponds to the claimed “interface board,”
then body 30 must have a “plurality of interfaces coupled in series in a predetermined
order, and in parallel to receive a plurality of said boundary scan signals.” If this
“plurality of interfaces” is constituted by Jarwala’s boundary scan registers 36, then it is
unclear how a “connector interface” is “removably coupling with one of said plurality of
interfaces” in Jarwala.
In response to appellants’ argument about Jarwala not disclosing that either the
card 10 or the modules 31 includes a socket for receiving an integrated circuit 12 and
that the sockets 32, contacts 34" and modules 31 do not receive any ICs, especially ICs
12, since the sockets receive card 10, which is not an IC (plus the fact that sockets 32,
contacts 34" and modules 31 are not on the card 10 but on the body 30), the examiner
states that “such sockets would clearly be included since Jarwala teaches (col. 3, lines
2-8) that the devices 12-12n are themselves configured as boundary scan devices and
also includes non-boundary devices thus Jarwala supports both types of
devices and thus would include sockets to be able to switch between a boundary scan
device and a non-boundary scan device” [answer-page 8].
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007