Appeal No. 2004-0040
Application No. 09/273,820
interpreted by the artisan as including plural design checks or
plural design/test vectors as we outlined earlier. Thus, the
capability is fairly taught when the teachings of columns 110 and
104 are construed together that plural checks per file are
capable of being selectively chosen by the user, even to the
point of selecting plural such files as well. These include the
first and second files of independent claims 1 and 15 on appeal
as well as the third listed file in dependent claim 7. Each is
permissibly excluded at the option of the user. In our view, the
artisan is fairly taught that each of the respective files may
comprise one or more tests at least to the extent claimed in
independent claims 1 and 15 on appeal. We are therefore
unpersuaded by appellant’s arguments in the brief and reply brief
as to these claims.
With respect to dependent claim 2 argued at page 14 of the
principal Brief on appeal, we are not persuaded that the
reference does not fairly teach the artisan within 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 that exclusion of all tests are identified in the first or
second files. Column 110, lines 58 and 59 clearly indicate that
the “user selects the processes that are to be exempt for the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007