Appeal No. 95-0907
Application 07/774,757
peripherals in Rattan are simply operational units controlled by
the computer of Rattan and are not reasonably deemed any part of
a device under test, where the test is, as claimed, "for
verifying the conformity of a device under test with a standard
application protocol defining the format, meaning and
applicability of messages to be received and transmitted by the
device under test." The examiner's contrary view is
unreasonable. As is stated by the appellant (Br. at 9):
[T]he plurality of peripherals controlled by the
computer of Rattan et al. are not fairly a device under
test, either individually or in combination. They are
a collection of peripherals to be controlled by the
computer.
Rattan's sensing what type of unit is connected, whether it is
turned on, and what it is doing, in our view, does not reasonably
constitute a test for determining conformity with a communication
protocol defining the format, meaning and applicability of
messages to be received and transmitted by the device under test.
We agree with the appellant that the "control" aspect of Rattan
is not reasonably combinable with the "testing" aspect of Wang
regarding conformity to a standard protocol. The two cannot be
equated as being the same or equivalent to each other.
Even assuming that Rattan's controlling is a form of testing
for communications protocol defining the format, meaning and
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007