Appeal No. 1997-2660 Page 8
Application No. 08/224,407
desirability thereof. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992), In re Gordon, 733 F.2d
900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Here, the examiner admits, “Choy does not show the data
path test circuitry for testing the path ...." (Examiner’s
Answer at 8.) Although Eikill "includes two processing
device, identified as 18 and 20," col. 4, 11. 10-11, the
examiner fails to identify any teaching of testing the
processor devices. Noting that Eikill only teaches testing
memories, he alleges, "it would have been obvious ... to
realize that not only the memory array integrity can be tested
... but also the data lines (96, 98 & 100) [data path] can be
tested while testing each of the memory arrays." (Examiner’s
Answer at 10-11.) Because the examiner has not shown that the
references teach testing a processor, his allegation amounts
to impermissible reliance on the appellant’s teachings or
suggestions. The addition of Jacobson has not been shown to
cure the defects of Choy and Eikill.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007