Appeal No. 1997-1060
Application No. 08/172,848
lines 39-65 of Saito. The appellant’s claim 11 limitation of
“configuring the device for at least one test mode” is met by
applying the supply voltage (V ) and supplying test signals
cc
TEST 1 to TEST M to appropriate pads of the exchange
controller. We also agree with the examiner that the
appellant’s claim 11 limitation of “sequentially addressing
selected cells of the device” is met by the teachings in
column 5, lines 41-43 and lines 55-67, and column 6, lines 65-
67 of Saito. The appellant’s claim 11 limitation of “changing
the state of at least one device output if a redundant line
has been addressed” is met by the change in state of the
device output RDE from a high level signal to a low level
signal when a redundant line has been addressed. (Column 5,
lines 62-67 and column 6, lines 11-15). We are mindful of the
fact that claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation during prosecution. In re Prater, 415 F.2d
1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969). Consequently, unlike
appellant’s claim 1, claim 11 is not limited to changing the
state of an external output pin on the semiconductor device.
Quite the opposite, when we give claim 11 the broadest
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007