Appeal No. 95-3920
Application No. 08/151,938
over Watts. In a new ground of rejection entered in the
principal answer, the examiner further rejects claims 1
through 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Watts in
view of Carter while claims 8 through 11 stand further
rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Carter in
view of Watts.
Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the
respective details of the positions of appellant and the
examiner.
OPINION
We will sustain all of the stated rejections on appeal.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1, 3 and 8 through
10, the examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
anticipation in showing that Watts discloses the provision of
a timer reset pulse, the generation of a timeout pulse and the
reduction of a system clock frequency.
With regard to claims 1 through 11, the examiner has set
forth a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that while
one might argue that Watts does not appear to show the claimed
physical pulses, it was notorious to skilled artisans in the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007