Appeal No. 97-2111
Application 08/158,345
combine teachings of Burchard with those of Gamache to arrive at
the features broadly recited in claim 26, we also find that
Burchard alone teaches elements of claim 26 which the examiner
relies on Gamache to provide. For example, the examiner relies
on Gamache to teach bus mastering [answer, page 7] although
Burchard clearly suggests a bus master as discussed above. When
claim 26 is properly interpreted to require nothing more than the
detection of a signal such as EXTEST and a bus access request in
response thereto, we agree with the examiner that this invention
would have been obvious in view of the applied prior art.
We now consider dependent claims 27-31. Each of these
claims recites a specific relationship between an operation
performed by the Boundary-Scan master while it is in certain
specific states similar to the recitations of dependent claims
21-25. For reasons we have pointed out above, the examiner’s
rejection does not properly address these claim limitations and
they cannot be found in the applied prior art. Therefore, we
again conclude that the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness for the invention as recited in claims
27-31. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of these
claims as proposed by the examiner.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007