Appeal No. 1998-2767
Application 08/391,541
present in the Davis system, the Examiner has not specifically
shown the claimed step of “latching the first value in the
first register using the diagnostic state machine.”
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 1 over Davis.
Independent claim 17 is also rejected as being obvious
over Davis. We find that claim 17 contains the limitations
discussed above regarding claim 1. Therefore, for the same
rationale, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 17 over Davis.
We next consider the rejection of independent claims 15
and 25 over Davis and Mizuta. Each of claims 15 and 25
contains, inter alia, limitations corresponding to those
recited above regarding claim 1. Mizuta does not cure the
deficiencies of Davis in meeting those limitations.
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 15 and 25 over Davis and Mizuta.
Regarding the dependent claims 3, 9 to 10, and 18 to 20,
their obviousness rejection over Davis is not sustained for
the same reasons as claim 1.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007