Appeal No. 95-3658
Application 07/777,877
prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for such expert testimony has not been shown.").
Those of ordinary skill in the art must also be presumed to know something about the art apart from what
the references expressly disclose. In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962).
Claims 1 and 8
Initially, we analyze and interpret claim 1.
Claim 1 is an open ended claim because of the transition word "comprising" and does not exclude
the presence of other structure in the applied prior art, such as the second matrix memory BFRAM 49 in
Harns.
While the examiner finds a difference in the order of testing the rows and columns and concludes
that the order is a matter of design choice (Examiner's Answer, page 4), Harns expressly discloses that
rows and columns are interchangeable (column 30, lines 43-52). Thus, the order is not a difference.
The "array built in self test (ABIST) system" in the preamble of claim 1 does not require all means
in the body of the claim to be disposed on the chip. Compare this to claim 2 which expressly recites an
"array built in self test (ABIST) system disposed on a single semiconductor chip" (emphasis added). In
claim 1, the "first means coupled to said memory array for identifying" (emphasis added) does not require
the first identifying means to be on the chip; it could be external circuitry coupled to the memory array
through pins or a probe. The same is true for the second identifying means. Nor does claim 1 require the
"means for applying column address signals," "means . . . for storing the address signals . . . in said first
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007