Appeal No. 1997-3358 Page 10
Application No. 08/477,742
memories, the examiner alleges, “it would have been obvious
... to realize that not only the memory array integrity can be
test [sic] ... but also the performance of the processor can
be test [sic] while testing the memory array.” (Id. at 17.)
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.
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 rejection of claims
21-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the provisional rejection of claims 21-23
and 25-34 under the judicially created doctrine of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007