Appeal No. 95-3920
Application No. 08/151,938
data processing arts that a high level description as set
forth by Watts “would be physically implemented using the
physical pulses of the claimed invention.” [principal answer -
page 3].
With regard to the new grounds of rejection under 35
U.S.C. 103, the examiner sets forth a prima facie case of
obviousness by pointing out that while Watts may not show a
specific hardware realization of a timer reset or timeout
pulse, when viewed in light of Carter, in the environment of
stopping a system clock when peripherals have been inactive
for a predetermined time, which discloses hardware
implementations of the indicated claim limitations, the
skilled artisan would have been led to the claimed invention.
While, in our view, the examiner has set forth reasonable
cases of anticipation and obviousness, appellant’s response is
merely to attack the Watts reference as an improper reference
against the instant claims because Watts is directed to
software for changing the frequency of the clock rather than
the hardware of the instant claimed invention. Appellant
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007