Appeal No.1996-3237
Application 08/266,431
claimed invention would have been obvious in view of these
teachings of Carbine.
Although appellants make some arguments which the
examiner has properly dismissed as not being commensurate in
scope with the claimed invention, appellants make one very
good argument which the examiner has completely ignored both
in the statement of the rejection and in the response to
arguments section of the answer. This one very good argument
is that each of the appealed claims recites that the
comparison is between the state of the circuit at one point in
time with the state of the circuit at a second point in time.
In other words, test outputs of the claims are compared to
each other and not to some expected response.
The examiner notes that Carbine performs a comparison
between states of the circuit and expected responses and seems
to consider this comparison to be the same as the claimed
comparison. While there is no question that the VLSI tester
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007