The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte HANS JURGEN MATT, DIETER KOPP,
MICHAEL TROMPF, and STEFAN SPATH
____________
Appeal No. 2002-1938
Application No. 09/292,959
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before BARRETT, GROSS, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A patent examiner rejected claims 1 and 2. The appellants appeal therefrom
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The invention at issue on appeal concerns the use of a digital signal processor
("DSP") in an application specific integrated circuit ("ASIC"). According to the
appellants, a DSP has been used "for various language coding applications as the core
of an ASIC." (Paper No. 7 at 1.) Although the computing capacity of the DSP is
needed "primarily for special, customer oriented applications," (id. at 2), they explain
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007