Appeal No. 2005-1361
Application No. 09/798,287 8
components includes at least one software component. Appellants
assert that the software component in Dow is not within a
plurality of components associated with a plurality of status
registers where status values are read from [brief, pages 8-9].
The examiner responds that the claim recitation “associated with”
is broad enough to be met by the self-test program disclosed by
Dow [answer, page 23]. Appellants respond that the status of the
built-in self test is not a status code corresponding to a change
in the status value of he component that is stored in a status
register and read [reply brief, pages 8-9].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 22
for the reasons argued by the examiner in the answer and for the
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to separately argued claims 9, 10, 25 and 26,
appellants argue that Dow fails to teach bitwise operations on
the strings of binary digits to form the new value, which may
include concatenating the strings of binary digits. Appellants
assert that the portions of Dow relied on by the examiner fail to
disclose the claimed invention [brief, pages 9-10]. The examiner
responds by explaining how the operations performed in Dow can be
considered to be bitwise operations as claimed and how the
combined state values can be considered to be a concatenation of
binary strings [answer, pages 23-25]. Appellants respond that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007