Appeal No. 2006-2461
Application No. 09/991,020
the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore and
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed.
Cir. 1983). Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but
chose not to make in the briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
The examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to be
fully met by the disclosure of Akasheh [answer, pages 3-10]. Regarding
independent claims 1, 8, and 21, appellant argues that Akasheh does not
disclose receiving a selected one of a plurality of previously created alternative
specifications for assessing a datapoint generated by a test, wherein each of the
plurality of alternative specifications is a different specification for assessing the
datapoint as claimed [brief, page 7; reply brief, page 2]. Specifically, appellant
argues that Akasheh does not indicate alternative specifications, but rather
indicates only one associated specification for each of multiple parameters [brief,
page 8; reply brief, page 3]. In this regard, appellant notes that the user employs
the tolerance manager to set the tolerance condition for a given parameter of
interest, and then applies that condition to the test to be conducted [answer,
pages 7 and 8; reply brief, pages 2 and 3].
The examiner responds that multiple previously created alternative
specifications are provided when the user sets the voltage parameter in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007