Appeal No. 1997-1015
Application No. 08/168,713
testing of all of the redundant elements (unassigned) prior to the search for a non-defective
redundant element.” (See examiner’s answer in response to the reply brief at page 3.)
We disagree with the examiner. The language of the claim states that “for each defective
element detected: searching for a first non-defective redundant element which is
unassigned by testing of the redundant elements which have not been assigned.”
(Emphasis added.) Therefore, the examiner’s interpretation of this limitation is
unreasonable in view of the fact that for each defective element, testing of redundant
elements is carried out. The examiner’s interpretation would equate the language of the
claim to the complete testing of the redundant elements prior to any search. For the
examiner’s interpretation, the language of the claim would have to recite “searching . . .
tested redundant elements” rather than “searching . . . by testing” as set forth in the claim.
This interpretation is contrary to the clear language of claim 1. Therefore, we will not
sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims over Saito alone.
Claim 13 includes a similar claim limitation that for each defective element, a
search is performed “by testing the redundant elements.” Therefore, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 13 and its dependent claims over Saito alone.
With respect to claims 2 and 17, Choi is added by the examiner, but the examiner
has not identified any teaching in Choi which remedy the above deficiency in Saito.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 17.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007