Appeal No. 97-2111
Application 08/158,345
Nevertheless, the invention is disclosed to be in the operations
performed by the Boundary-Scan master while it resides in various
ones of these states. Claims 21-25 specifically recite these
conditions.
While we cannot address the question of whether prior art
Boundary-Scan masters have been known to operate in the claimed
manner, we can address the fact that neither Burchard nor Gamache
teaches or suggests what operations take place while the Burchard
Boundary-Scan master is in any of the conventional states.
Burchard does not mention any of the conventional states of a
Boundary-Scan master within the JTAG standard. Even if these
states are known to exist in the Burchard Boundary-Scan master,
there is absolutely no evidence that the operations recited in
claims 21-25 are performed during the states as claimed. The
examiner at most has found that the operations as claimed must be
performed by the Burchard device, but the examiner has otherwise
ignored the claimed relationships of the operations to the
states. Therefore, with respect to claims 21-25, the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims as
proposed by the examiner.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007