Ex Parte BROWN et al - Page 7




              Appeal No. 2002-0880                                                                                     
              Application No. 09/183,214                                                                               


              tion link, as the phrase is normally used and is used in the present application, means a                
              communication medium external to the test apparatus.  See page 8 of the brief.                           
              Appellants further argue that Winkler does not teach providing a control signal over a                   
              communication link to cause a test apparatus to execute a first test based upon the                      
              control signals.  See pages 9 through10 of the brief.                                                    
                     The Examiner relies on Winkler for the teaching of a processor connected by a                     
              data bus to a waveform generator to generate certain waveforms to input a module                         
              being tested.  In particular, the Examiner points us to Figure 2 which shows processor                   
              55, waveform generator 42, MUT interface 16, MUT 38 and data bus.  In response to                        
              the argument that the data bus is not a communication link, the Examiner argues that a                   
              communication link is a medium that allows one device or system to communicate with                      
              another device or system.  See page 10 of the answer.                                                    
                     We note that Appellants’ claim 1 recites “causing the test apparatus to execute a                 
              first test based on the retrieved set of test parameters by providing a control signal to                
              the test apparatus over a communication link.”                                                           
                     When interpreting a claim, words of the claim are generally given their ordinary                  
              and accustomed meaning, unless it appears from the specification or the file history                     
              that they were used differently by the inventor.   Carroll touch, inc. v. Electro                        





                                                          7                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007