Appeal No. 2001-2692 Page 12
Application No. 08/789,001
directional macro cells." Giving the claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the
limitations require at least one bi-directional element.
Turning to the reference, the flip-flop of Modarres can input data via its
aforementioned inputs and output data via its aforementioned outputs. Because the
inputting and outputting occur in different directions, i.e., inward and outward, we find
that the flip-flop is a bidirectional element. Therefore, we affirm the anticipation
rejection of claim 30 by Modarres.
Fourth, observing that claim 3 "further limits some of the macro cells," (Appeal
Br. at 29), the appellants argue, "[t]his limitation is not taught in any of the prior art of
record. . . ." (Id.) For its part, claim 3 further specifies in pertinent part the following
limitations: "selected ones of the input macro cells include a boundary scan logic
module, said boundary scan logic module having a number of terminals."
"The review authorized by 35 U.S.C. Section 134 is not a process whereby the
examiner . . . invite[s] the [B]oard [of Patent Appeals and Interferences] to examine the
application and resolve patentability in the first instance.” Ex parte Braeken, 54
USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (Bd.Pat.App. & Int. 1999). In an ex parte appeal, "the Board is
basically a board of review — we review . . . rejections made by patent examiners." Ex
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007