Appeal No. 95-2784
Application 08/193,634
feedback information, processes it and carries out the
operations necessary to
complete a feedback loop. Appellant states that "in the
present invention the [single active] processor 12 does
everything from closing all low level servo control loops to
the highest level user interface functions.
The Examiner argues on page 4 of the answer that
the Hyatt circuit shown in Figure 3 is not a processor because
Figure 3 does not show a central processing unit, CPU. In the
reply brief, Appellant argues that while it is recognized that
the term "processor" is often used in reference to a device
having a central processing unit, nevertheless, the term
"processor" in its broadest context does not mean that a given
processor must have a central processing unit. Appellant has
further buttressed this argument in the brief on page 5.
Appellant argues that the term "active processor" found in
Appellant's claim 1 must be interpreted as defined in the
specification. Appellant points to page 7, lines 16-20, of
the specification which defines an active
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007