Appeal No. 1997-4069 Page 9
Application No. 08/282,913
1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d
900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). “It is
impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction
manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the
prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.”
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1266, 23 USPQ2d at 1784, (citing In re
Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir.
1991)).
Here, Choi teaches “a high speed test system ... that
measures electrical properties of various devices.” Col. 2,
ll. 49-50. The examiner fails to allege, let alone show,
however, that a device being measured by the test system
remains connected to and exercised by the actual system in
which it is to be used. Rather than remaining connected to
the actual system, the reference’s device under test (DUT) is
received by a socket 15 in an adapter board 13. Col. 4, ll.
3-4. Instead of being exercised by the actual system,
moreover, “[a] multiplicity of electronic boards are provided
[in Choi] to drive the device under test.” Id. at ll. 5-6.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007