Appeal No. 2006-2407
Application No. 09/802,857
artisan and to us that they would also be connected under a common bus
environment as in figure 3 even as the discussion at the beginning of column 6 of
Sagane as to the second embodiment in figure 3 relies in part upon the structural
elements in the first embodiment in figure 1. These in turn are further modified
according to the additional teaching at the top of column 7 of the need or proposal
of an additional modification of the second embodiment to interpose a control flag
switch 7a and switch 7c of figure 1 between the comparator 8 and the switch 23 in
the figure 3 or second embodiment. This appears to relate to the additional
modification of duplicated structures just mentioned to accommodate the sequential
switching between a plurality of bugs in the program.
Before we treat the teachings in Hosotani, independent claim 13 on appeal
does not require that the central processing unit receive the plurality of coincidence
signals at the same time. Thus, the claim is consistent with the teaching value of
Sagane of the ability as modified according to the just-noted teachings of the figure
3 embodiment to accommodate sequentially separate bugs. Implicit with this
understanding then is the ability of the system to generate a plurality of different
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007