Appeal No. 94-3053
Application 07/832,661
ordinary meaning. We must therefore give this claim language
its broadest reasonable interpretation. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997);
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed.
Cir. 1989).
With respect to the above-argued claim language,
Hester discloses "an on-chip condition sensor" by teaching
that "support processor 26 attaches to the microprocessor 28
in the system under test through the LSSD scan strings 30a and
30b." Col. 2, lines 32-34. Hester also discloses a "means
responsive to the recognition of said predetermined condition
for applying a control input to said electronic processor . .
. ." More specifically, the device of Hester has
"predetermined conditions" by disclosing that "[a]n
instruction compare address register"
contains "the desired instruction . . . compare values." Col.
3, lines 22-26. As to the limitation of "responsive to . . .
for applying a control input . . .," Hester teaches that the
condition sensor "include[s] the ability to examine and alter
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007