Appeal No. 1999-0153
Application No. 08/488,394
been addressed. We would further point out that appealed
claim 1 also requires the selection by the first multiplexer
of an input synchronous clock signal or a test clock signal, a
disclosure of which we find lacking in Staiger.
Since all of the claim limitations are not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art, it is our opinion that the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to appealed claim 1. Accordingly, we do not
sustain
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1 and,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007