Appeal No. 96-1439
Application 08/338,976
is reversed for the same reasons we reversed the rejection of
claim 2. The features recited in dependent claims 17 and 18
would have been obvious to the artisan in light of the
disclosures of storing error values and storing correct flip
flop values for comparison purposes in Missios. The
discussion with respect to figures subsequent to Fig. 1 in
Missios indicate that a particular failing component may be
identified. Whether the final storage media is volatile or
nonvolatile as recited in dependent claim 18, we consider that
the artisan would have found it obvious to have utilized
either in which to store any defect or error information
discovered during the testing operation.
We reverse the rejection of dependent claim 19
essentially for the same reason as we reversed the rejection
of the features recited in dependent claim 2. Because claim
20 depends from claim 19, we also reverse the rejection of
this claim.
In view of the above discussion, we do not agree with the
examiner’s interpretation of the reference indicating a view
that Missios does not explicitly teach the retrying of an
instruction or the retrying of an instruction at a reduced
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007