Appeal No. 1997-0339
Application 08/330,768
signal and a separate complement signal line is unnecessary.
We are again not convinced that the claim language excludes by
recitation a locally generated complement signal. Therefore,
we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 3 over Rickard.
With respect to the independent claim 6, we encounter the
same problem with the interpretation of the claim. In fig. 2
of
Rickard, line 30 carries a true data, a line carrying the
output of inverter 34 carries a complement. Together, they
comprise a data path. Then, latch 35 is for capturing a test
signal and a multiplexer 35 is coupled first to the data
lines, and coupled second to the latch. A test signal is
selected in response to the select signal 33. Therefore, we
sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 6 and its grouped
claims 7 to 9 over Rickard.
Regarding the independent claim 10, fig. 1 or 2 of
Rickard shows the step of providing of a true data signal and
a complement signal ( at 16 and 18, and at 30 and output of 34
respectively) and the step of selecting at 20 and 24 in fig.1
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007