Appeal No. 2006-2461
Application No. 09/991,020
with the same nominal value, selecting a different operator (e.g., selecting “>”
instead of “<”) could drastically change the assessment of the acquired data
generated by the test. Moreover, our interpretation fully comports with
appellant’s definition of “specification”: the respective operators dictate “the
acceptable limits or tolerance against which the result of a measurement is to be
judged.”2
Because Akasheh discloses all claimed limitations of independent claims
1, 8, 16, and 21, the examiner’s anticipation rejection of those claims is therefore
sustained.
Akasheh anticipates the dependent claims as well. Regarding claims 2, 3,
9, 10, 15, and 22, selecting and activating the menu of operators from the
tolerance manager screen in Fig. 8 of Akasheh fully meets receiving a request for
a display of the plurality of available specifications wherein the request comprises
the selection of an option of a displayed menu as claimed. Regarding claims 4,
5, 11, 12, and 17-19, the menu of operators corresponds to the plurality of
specifications displayed on a menu as discussed previously. Claims 7, 14, and
24 are also fully met by Akasheh since the instructions for determining the
plurality of specifications available (i.e., the available operators in the tolerance
manager in Fig. 8) comprises instructions for directing the processing unit to
determine the test applied to the device since each operator ultimately
represents a different test. Even with user intervention, the processing unit will
2 See reply brief, page 4.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007