Appeal No. 96-1439
Application 08/338,976
predetermined clock signals or program “operations” are
performed at the respective block labels D. Thus, to the
extent claimed there is clear recitation of a plurality of
retry operations even though it appears that previously
executed operations are again performed in their entirety for
the entire sequence of operations for each node position or
block D. The claim does not exclude such an understanding of
the claim. Again, as to the claimed varying operation of the
processing cycle time, the reference in its entirety makes
clear that the testing operations are performed at reduced
clock frequencies.
We reverse the rejection of dependent claim 2 because
there is no teaching or suggestion in Missios or persuasive
line of reasoning advanced by the examiner for the requirement
of this
claim for initiating a deferred service call under the
conditions specified in the claims. Furthermore, because
claims 3 and 4 depend in turn from claim 2, the rejection of
claims 3 and 4 is also reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007