Appeal No. 95-4501
Application No. 07/827,549
may very well be that such exclusion of a module from a scan
path might be considered a “stopping” operation of peripheral
circuitry, as broadly claimed, this was not part of the
examiner’s rejection or rationale therefor and we will not
speculate at this point in the prosecution as to whether or
not an exclusion of a module is tantamount to stopping
operation of that module, or peripheral circuit.
It is the examiner’s job to establish an anticipation
through a specific correlation of claimed elements to elements
in the prior art and/or to establish obviousness through a
convincing line of reasoning based on teachings and/or
suggestions from the prior art. Unless and until the examiner
has done so, appellants are under no obligation to present
specific arguments distinguishing the claimed invention from
the applied prior art for to do so would amount to speculation
on appellants’ part as to the exact nature of the examiner’s
rejection. Thus, while we find, in the instant case, that
appellants’ arguments comprise substantially nothing more than
a general denial that Daniels (and for claims 17 and 18, a
combination of Hester and Daniels) teaches or suggests the
claimed “starting and stopping operations...,” no more was
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007