Appeal No. 1999-2052
Application No. 08/572,202
Appellant argues that we have overlooked some points (19
as enumerated on pages 2-4 of the rehearing request) argued in
Appellant’s brief while rendering said decision.
We have reconsidered our decision of May 6, 2002 in light of
Appellant’s comments in the request for reconsideration and we find
an error with respect to claims 59, 60, 62, 63, 64 and 66, which
corresponds to item numbers 6, 15, 16 and 17 of the request for
rehearing. However, we find no error in our decision regarding the
remaining claims. We therefore modify our decision accordingly.
Our response to the various points raised in the request for
rehearing is as follows.
Regarding the items 1-4 of the request for rehearing, we refer
to our decision at pages 6-9 where we did consider the limitation
of “a decreasing level of activity within said CPU” (rehearing
request at page 5), and where we also gave our rationale for
holding that the Examiner had a justifiable reason to combine the
references and that the Examiner had indeed presented a prima facie
case. Appellant argues (rehearing request at page 7) that “the
Smith et al. reference teaches a device in which the clock signal
to the CPU is modified only after NO ACTIVITY has been detected for
a PREDETERMINED amount of time ....” In response, we first note
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007