Appeal No. 94-4061
Application 07/659,683
does not mean that it is indefinite See In re Miller, 441 F.2d
689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971).
We are not in agreement with the examiner that it is
not clear what executes the watchdog instruction. Claim 15
recites "including in a program executed by said microprocessor a
plurality of watchdog instruction" and "initiating execution of
said program by said microprocessor." In addition, the
specification states at page 3, lines 7-8 "a microprocessor
arrangement which includes a microprocessor that executes a
program which includes a number of watchdog instructions." In
view of the language of claim 15 and the teachings in appellant's
specification, we are of the opinion that persons of ordinary
skill in the art would clearly understand that it is the
microprocessor which executes the watchdog instructions.
We also disagree with the examiner when he states that
the language: `resetting said microprocessor means in response to
an occurrence of said activation signals... in other than said
predetermined sequence' recited in claim 9 and similarly recited
in claim 15 does not precisely recite when the resetting occurs
(Examiner's Answer, Page 3). In our view, it is clear from the
language of claims 9 and 15 that the microprocessor is reset when
the activation signals occur out of sequence. This is also
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007