Appeal No. 1999-1796
Application 08/705,149
anticipated for the same reasons stated with respect to
claim 30 (Br6-7). This does not constitute a separate
argument for patentability. Id. ("Merely pointing out
differences in what the claims cover is not an argument as to
why the claims are separately patentable."). However, we
address these claims separately because they are broader, or
at least different, than argued claim 30. Appellant makes an
argument as to claims 44 and 48 (Br7; RBr4-5); thus, we
consider claim 44 and 48 separately. The dependent claims are
not separately argued and, thus, stand or fall together with
the independent claim from which they directly or indirectly
depend.
Anticipation
Appellant discloses that the self refresh test mode
controller 170 "monitors and/or controls various blocks and
internal signals on conductors between blocks in semiconductor
device 110" (emphasis added) (specification, p. 11,
lines 9-11). One of the four functions of controller 170 is
"the ability to monitor internal signals while in the
self-refresh mode" (specification, p. 8, line 28; p. 12,
line 25); that is, "merely monitoring at least some of the
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007