Appeal No. 2002-0880
Application No. 09/183,214
identification as recited in Appellants’ claim 12. Appellants argue that the Examiner has
erred because the Examiner has provided no legal sufficient motivation or suggestion to
combine Winkler, Bald and Amazeen. The Examiner has pointed us to column 2, lines
32 through 34 and column 5, lines 19 through 25 of Amazeen. There, Amazeen
teaches that generating a data file based on the information representative of the test
measurement data and associated with identification is desirable because the results
could be later reviewed and easily associated with the
proper IC or device under test. We fail to find that the Appellants have provided any
argument as to how the Examiner erred in the Examiner’s finding why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have had reasons to make the combination. Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Winkler, Bald and Amazeen.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and we have not sustained the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have however, sustained
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 through 12, 14, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007