Appeal No. 2006-2407
Application No. 09/802,857
a central processing unit receiving said plurality of coincidence signals,
wherein said central processing unit:
executes one of a plurality of debugging programs stored within random
access memory when said one of said plurality of coincidence signals indicates a
coincidence of said program address and said one of said plurality of bug addresses,
executes another of said plurality of debugging programs stored within said
random access memory when said another of said plurality of coincidence signals
indicates a coincidence of said program address and said another of said plurality of
bug addresses, and
executes said program stored within said program memory when said
plurality of coincidence signals indicates a non-coincidence of said program
address and any of said plurality of bug addresses.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Sagane 5,454,100 Sep. 26, 1995
Hosotani 5,701,506 Dec. 23, 1997
Claims 13 through 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies upon Sagane in view of Hosotani.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference
is made to the supplemental brief and reply brief for appellants’ positions, and to
the answer and supplemental answer (mailed on May 22, 2006) for the examiner’s
positions.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007