Appeal No. 1997-2660 Page 9
Application No. 08/224,407
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that
teachings from the prior art would appear to have suggested
the claimed limitation of circuitry for testing processing
elements. The examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the rejections of claims
12-20 under U.S.C. § 103. Next, we address the patentability
of claims 1-11.
Patentability of Claims 1-11
Our opinion addresses the following patentability issues
for claims 1-11:
• inadequacy of written description
• indefiniteness
• obviousness.
We begin by addressing the inadequacy of the written
description of claims 1-11.
Written Description
Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b), we enter a new ground of
rejection against claims 1-11. "To fulfill the written
description requirement, the patent specification ‘must
clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to
recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.’"
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007