Appeal No. 1997-0636
Application No. 08/312,959
with Akahori, Yamada describes the storing of test
instructions in a program memory 301 (Yamada, page 2, lines
15-17), but is silent as to any control of such operation by
reset control switch 11.
In view of the above discussion, it is our opinion that,
since all of the limitations of independent claim 1 are not
taught or suggested by the applied prior art, the Examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of independent claim 1, nor of claims 3 and 4 dependent
thereon.
With respect to dependent claim 2, it is apparent from
the Examiner’s analysis at page 6 of the Answer that Mori was
added to the combination of Akahori and Yamada for the sole
purpose of addressing the logical “OR” circuitry limitation.
The Mori reference is directed to a battery saving feature in
a radio paging receiver; however, we can find no teaching or
suggestion of a control switch which performs both data
writing control and test mode initiating. As such, Mori has
no disclosure which would overcome the innate deficiencies of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007