Appeal No. 1997-1015
Application No. 08/168,713
2
addressed the language of the invention as set forth in claims 1 and 13. We agree with
appellant. The examiner has addressed the language of the claims and their limitations in
a general way rather than addressing the specific interrelation of the process steps. (See
final rejection at pages 3-5 which is incorporated into the answer at page 4.) Here, the
examiner addresses the individual steps and general functions being carried out by Saito.
In the Response to argument section, the examiner addresses the arguments with respect
to claim 23, which has been canceled by an amendment filed July 17, 1996.
Appellant argues that Saito does not teach or suggest the “SEQUENCE of steps”
as set forth in the language of claim 1. (See brief at page 10.) We agree with appellant.
Appellant further argues that:
[W]hile Saito uses a single method for testing the main memory and the
spare memory, the primary embodiment of the present application applies
two different methods for testing the main memory and the spare memory, in
order to improve the time needed to test and repair the memory. This
inventive method is different from that of Saito, and gives a corresponding
advantage in speed.
See brief at page 12. (Emphasis in original.) We agree with appellant.
The examiner addresses claim 1 in the examiner’s answer in response to the reply
brief. Here, the examiner states that “[c]laim 1 can be interpreted as describing the
While we agree that the examiner has not addressed the limitation in claim 13 pertaining to2
“repeatedly,” we note that appellant has neither presented support for this limitation in the specification as
originally filed nor explained the limitation as it relates to the disclosed invention or prior art. We question
whether appellant intends to repeatedly search and assign redundant elements even after the first non-
defective element is located wherein all elements are retested in the sequence which were previously
assigned. Or, does appellant intend a different interpretation?
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007