Appeal No. 2002-0880
Application No. 09/183,214
Mechanical Sys., Inc. 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
We find that term “communication link” does require more than simply a means
for allowing one device to receive data from another device as argued by the Examiner.
Furthermore, we note that the Appellants have made of record that the communication
link as per this claim means a communication medium external to the test apparatus
other than a data bus. Furthermore, Appellants’ specification supports Appellants’
arguments. We note that Appellants specification states on page 12 that the test
apparatus 18 is coupled to the processor 16 through the I/O circuitry 28 and
communicates with the processor 16 over a I.E.E.E. 488 link 17. Thus, the term
“communication link” given its ordinary meaning is a communication medium that allows
a device or system to communication externally with another system or device.
Turning to Winkler, we fail to find that Winkler’s data bus reads on Appellants’
claimed communication link. Therefore, we fail to find that Winkler teaches “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.”
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Winkler.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007