Appeal 2007-1427
Application 09/826,240
a multiplier interposed between said node and an output of said
reconfigurable circuit; and
a power selection system, including:
a monitoring circuit that determines a transition rate of
said node; and
a mode selection circuit coupled to said monitoring
circuit that reconfigures said monitored sub-circuit by altering a
power characteristic applied thereto based on a comparison
between said transition rate and a predetermined operating
range.
THE REFERENCE
Mittal US 5,719,800 Feb. 17, 1998
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 21-25 and 28-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Mittal.
Claims 26, 27, and 33-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mittal.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
Independent claims 21 and 28
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 21
and 28 as being anticipated by Mittal. Since Appellant’s arguments with
respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single group which
stand or fall together, we will select independent claim 28 as the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013