Appeal No. 97-2111
Application 08/158,345
Appellant argues that Burchard would not logically lead
one to the limitations of claim 20 because Burchard “is directed
to self-testing of a boundary scan integrated circuit in a
PRODUCTION environment ... and NOT in a operational environment”
[brief, page 8]. First, we find no language in claim 20 which
restricts operation to an operational environment as opposed to a
production environment. Second, Burchard notes that his device
is operable for normal condition, production test and self-test
[column 8, lines 32-33]. This passage would have suggested to
the artisan that Burchard was designed to be used in an
operational environment.
In summary, since we have determined that the examiner
has presented a prima facie case of the obviousness of the
invention as broadly recited in claim 20, and since a
preponderance of all the evidence and arguments supports the
examiner’s position, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim
20.
We now consider dependent claims 21-25. Each of these
claims recites a specific relationship between an operation
performed by the Boundary-Scan master while it is in certain
specific states. Each of the states per se is admitted by
appellant to be well known in the art [specification, page 8].
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007