Appeal No. 1999-0134
Application 08/590,695
set forth on pages 4-11 of the examiner’s answer. Appellants
have offered eight major arguments in the main brief which are
set forth in sections II-IX respectively. Since we basically
agree with each of appellants’ arguments as set forth in the
brief, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-
29.
It is not apparent to us how the examiner’s proposed
combination of Aihara and Mannle results in the claimed
invention. It appears that the examiner proposes to replace
the simulator of Aihara with the combined simulator and
testing of a circuit under test taught by Mannle. The problem
with this combination, in our view, is that neither Aihara nor
Mannle teaches producing portion-specific simulation test data
based on the simulation model and deriving test patterns using
the simulation test data. Aihara teaches the testing of a
complete simulation system with no derivation of test patterns
based on the simulation results. The test patterns in Aihara
are developed in response to the functional design of the
circuit. Mannle teaches that the generation of the test
program can be built incrementally as the device under test
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007