Appeal No. 2001-0632
Application No. 08/650,248
distribution for reducing clock skew and Meltzer teaches ordering
of SRLs in a scan chain, that is no reason to take only so much
from each reference as needed for a particular claim and forcibly
combine the two teachings to reach the instant claimed subject
matter. There must be some suggestion in the prior art, or some
reason for the artisan, to make the modification, other than what
is taught by appellant.
The examiner further explains that Lim provides motivation
by teaching advantages that include reduction in delay between
buffers and reduction in tributary length “which are highly
advantageous to the scan based test design taught by Meltzer” and
that Meltzer “expresses desirability to achieve maximum delay
fault coverage while Lim’s invention provides reduced delay
between buffers thus providing motivation...” [answer-pages 4-5].
We disagree. There is no suggestion in Lim that the invention
described therein would have any utility in a scan based test
design or in the ordering of scan chains. There is no suggestion
that Lim’s distribution of a clock signal would have any utility
in a scan chain of SRLs as taught by Meltzer. Accordingly, we
cannot accept the examiner’s reasoning as a convincing rationale
for making the combination in such a manner as to establish
obviousness in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103.
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007