Appeal No. 95-4501
Application No. 07/827,549
Daniels does not present a teaching or suggestion of the
claimed limitation of “starting and stopping” and the
examiner’s reasoning that one could “conclude that halt/stop
instructions might be executed” [emphasis ours] also does not
persuade us of any teaching or suggestion in Daniels of
“starting and stopping operations of the electronic processor
and the on-chip peripheral circuitry independently of each
other,” as claimed. That something might be done falls far
short of a suggestion to do it.
We also note that while appellants’ arguments are not
very compelling, basically merely denying that Daniels teaches
or suggests the claimed limitations, and, had the examiner
established a prima facie case for anticipation and/or
obviousness, appellants’ arguments would not appear to carry
much weight, the fact remains that the initial burden for
establishing such a prima facie case rests with the examiner
and the examiner, here, has simply failed to establish such.
Appellants admit that “the module in Daniels are
selectively excludable from the scan path in order to provide
the capability of realizing shorter scan paths and faster
testing times when desired” [reply brief-page 2]. While it
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007