Ex parte FAIRBANKS - Page 4




               Appeal No. 1996-4089                                                                                                
               Application 08/227,293                                                                                              


               examiners rely upon Watkins in view of Lipton, Yoshida, Omoda, or Binoeder.                                         

                       Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103.  As evidence of obviousness, the examiners                  

               rely upon Watkins in view of Varma and Lipton.                                                                      

                       Rather than repeat the positions of appellant and the examiners, reference is made to the Brief             

               and the Answer for the respective details thereof.                                                                  

                                                            OPINION                                                                

                       For the reasons generally set forth by appellant in the Brief, and for the reasons which follow,            

               we will reverse the rejection of claims 17, 18, and 20 to 26 under 35 U.S.C.  103.  As a consequence               

               of our review, we are in agreement with appellant that the claims on appeal would neither have been                 

               taught nor suggested by the references of record (see Brief, pages 9 to 16 and 26 to 27).                           

                       In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered                

               appellant’s specification and claims, the applied patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and           

               the examiners.  As a consequence of our review, we are in general agreement with appellant that the                 

               applied references would neither have taught nor suggested the methods of designing and testing logic               

               circuitry of appellant’s claims on appeal.  For the reasons which follow, we will reverse the decisions of          

               the examiners rejecting claims 17, 18, and 20 to 26 under 35 U.S.C.  103.                                          

                       Appellant argues (Brief, pages 9 to 11 and 26 to 27) that Watkins and Varma fail to teach or                

               suggest the specific design rules as recited in claims 17, 18, and 26 (rules (1) and (2) as discussed               


                                                                4                                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007