Ex parte HEDBERG et al. - Page 6

              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                                      


                       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