Appeal No. 2004-2368
Application No. 09/395,854 Page 9
even if we considered the first eight latches to be one stage and
the second eight latches to be a second stage, the claim is not
anticipated by Lindberg for the following reasons. Upon testing
disclosing a defect, Lindberg retests after latch 8. This does
not bypass the first stage, but rather retests the first stage of
latches 1-8. In addition, upon subsequently testing at latch 12
and getting a bad reading, does not indicate that the first stage
in non-defective, as this was determined by the testing at latch
8, but rather determines that the defect is in the second stage.
Thus, we find that the example provided by Lindberg does not
anticipate claim 15. Turning to the example provided by the
examiner (answer, page 7), we find that upon testing indicating a
bad result in the testing at latch h, the examiner then tests the
output of latch d. This does not bypass the first eight latches
of the first stage as required by claim 15. In addition,
retesting at latch b, also does not bypass all of the first
stage, but rather only part of the first stage. Thus, we find
that in both examples, Lindberg does not anticipate the language
of claim 15. Because neither of the two examples relied upon
meet the limitations of claim 15 due to the examiner's faulty
interpretation of the claim language, we find that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007