Appeal No. 2001-1125
Application No. 08/721,184
criteria would be selected after a test mode is already set,
whereas the claim requires criteria for selecting the test mode.
Thus, the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for claims 1, 27, 62, 63, and their dependents,
claims 2 through 26 and 28 through 60. Consequently, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 60, 62, and 63.
Claim 61 recites a step of "restricting the testing of the
selected circuit to a non-intrusive, monitor-only mode based on
preselected criteria." As discussed above, Fuller makes no
mention of any criteria for determining the testing mode.
Likewise, Fuller fails to suggest criteria for restricting the
display mode. Again, the examiner states that it is known to
select a criteria before testing begins. As the criteria for
restricting the display mode differs from criteria for a
particular test after that test has already been selected, the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of
claim 61 over Fuller.
As to the addition of Wallace for rejecting dependent claims
52 through 60, Wallace fails to cure the deficiency discussed
above. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 52
through 60 over Fuller in view of Wallace.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007