Appeal No. 2003-0326
Application No. 09/050,871
Rejection of Claims 7 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We will now consider the rejection of Claims 7 through 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Day in view of
Gundersen. Appellants argue that Day fails to disclose a tester
that “permits parallel asynchronous testing of all systems and
software applications” as recited in Appellants’ claim 7. See
page 22 of Appellants’ brief. Appellants argue that Day teaches
synchronous testing and fails to teach asynchronous testing.
Appellants further argue that Day does not teach parallel
asynchronous testing. See pages 4 and 5 of Appellants reply
brief.
Upon our review of Day, we find that Day fails to teach
“said tester permits parallel asynchronous testing of all systems
and software applications connected to said control interface” as
recited in Appellants’ claim 7. We note that the Examiner points
us to col. 2, lines 27 through 52 and col. 3, lines 20 through 56
of Day for the above limitation. However, in our review of these
portions of Day, we find nothing in Day that supports parallel
asynchronous testing for different types of systems and software
applications. In fact, it appears that Day teaches synchronous
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007