Appeal No. 1997-3358 Page 8
Application No. 08/477,742
according to commands from the processing devices
(figure 1, column 4 lines 45-53, column 5 lines 5-
19, column 5 lines 52-54 and column 6 lines 6-12).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
to realize that transmitting function is Eikill's
data path includes transmitting and receiving
functions (column 5 lines 52-54 & column 6 lines 45-
53). Such transmitting and receiving functions of
the data bus are equivalent to the claimed "specific
processing" functions. (Examiner’s Answer at 15.)
He alleges, “It would have been obvious to one skilled in the
art at the time the invention was made to realize that ... the
performance of the processor can be test [sic] while testing
the memory array.” (Id. at 17.) We agree with the appellant.
Each of claims 21-31 specifies in pertinent part the
following limitations: “data path test circuitry, coupled to
said data path, for testing said specific functions of said
plurality of processing elements of said data path ....”
Similarly, each of claims 32-40 specifies in pertinent part
the following limitations: “testing said specific functions of
said plurality of processing elements of the data path with
data path test circuitry ....” In summary, the claims recite
circuitry for testing processing elements.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007