Appeal No. 2006-2461
Application No. 09/991,020
ultimately determine the test once the user selects the desired operator.
Therefore, because Akasheh discloses all claimed limitations of dependent
claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 15, and 22, the examiner’s anticipation rejection of those
claims is likewise sustained.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 23, the examiner indicates that Akasheh
discloses a process or instructions invoked by the test procedure editor (TPE)
that direct the processing unit to determine the UUT being tested [answer, pages
6 and 15]. The examiner notes that if multiple UUTs exist, the user is instructed
to select a UUT. However, if there is only one UUT, it is automatically selected
[answer, pages 6 and 16]. Appellant responds that Akasheh refers to a user
making a selection – not directing a processing unit to determine the device
being tested.
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 13, and 23. The
scope and breadth of the claim language fully reads on Akasheh’s automatic
selection of the UUT when only one UUT is defined [see Akasheh, col. 16, lines
38-40]. Although the user is prompted to select a UUT from multiple UUTs, the
system’s automatic selection of a single UUT nonetheless constitutes instructions
for directing the processing unit to determine the device being tested (i.e., the
single device) as claimed.
Moreover, even the act of prompting the user to select a UUT reasonably
constitutes instructions for directing the processing unit to determine the device
being tested. Even with user intervention, the processing unit will ultimately
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007