Appeal No. 95-0907 Application 07/774,757 device under test, the apparatus comprising test sequencing means for generating and supplying to the device under test a test sequence of messages, including messages requesting messages to be transmitted by the device under test in response indicating whether functions of predetermined definition are present or absent in the device under test, and for analyzing messages transmitted by the device under test in response, to determine conformity or not with the standard application protocol. Opinion We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Rattan. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Rattan, and the appellant's disclosed prior art. The appellant has argued claims 1 and 4-11 as a first group, claims 2 and 12 as a second group, and claims 3 and 13-20 as a third group. Claim 1 is the only independent claim. At the outset, we reject the appellant's argument that Wang is nonenabling prior art reference. First, it is noted that Wang has not been relied on by the examiner to show much at all. With respect to Wang, the examiner stated (answer at 3-4): Wang teaches a protocol testing technique which provides to a device under test a sequence of operations to drive the protocol implementation through a set of tests. This will determine whether a product under test conforms to a protocol standard. The examiner has relied on Wang to show nothing more -4-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007