Ex parte ADAMS et al. - Page 5

          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               

          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               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007