Appeal 2007-2701
Application 10/079,811
(vi) modelling the response of said hardware component
to said hardware stimulus, wherein said software stimulus is
passed to said software simulator by issuing a remote procedure
call from said test controller to said software simulator.
THE REFERENCES
Platt US 5,835,764 Nov. 10, 1998
Hollander US 6,182,258 B1 Jan. 30, 2001
Campbell US 6,408,009 B1 Jun. 18, 2002
Harmon US 6,810,373 B1 Oct. 26, 2004
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6-12, and 14-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Hollander in view of
Platt.
Claims 3-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Hollander in view of Platt, and further in
view of Campbell.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Hollander in view of Platt, and further in
view of Harmon.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013