Appeal No. 96-0166
Application 08/083,419
Powell does not disclose a "counter means" which produces a
"test enable signal," the rejection of claim 4 is reversed.
In addition, appellants argue that "Powell et al. teaches
nothing corresponding to Applicant's 'means ... for
communicating ... [a] test enable signal from each of the
counter means to each associated circuit means in place of ...
[an] enable signal" (Br12). A similar limitation is found in
claims 6 and 13. The examiner addresses this limitation in
connection with claim 13, where the examiner finds "selecting
the test signal in place of the enable signal when in the test
mode in column 4 lines 11-42" (EA6). We find nothing in the
referred to portion of Powell that teaches substitution of an
"enable signal" with a "test enable signal," regardless of the
names they might be called by in Powell. While the signals
applied by the address decoder/select circuit 52 in Powell
could be termed "test enable signals," they do not substitute
for "enable signals" and also are not produced by a "counter
means." Because Powell also does not disclose substituting a
"test enable signal" for an "enable signal," the rejection of
claim 4 is reversed for this additional reason.
Claim 5
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007