Appeal No. 95-3920
Application No. 08/151,938
poor position to argue that the software implementation of
Watts, which describes the functions and result to be obtained
by the instant invention, does not anticipate, and/or make
obvious, the instant claimed subject matter. We would further
note that, in fact, Watts shows more specific hardware than
does appellant. See Figure 3 of Watts. We also note, with
some curiosity, that while appellant argues so strongly that
the difference between Watts and the instant claimed invention
is the use of “hardware” by the latter, instant claims 8
through 11 are directed to a method, containing no “hardware”
at all.
Contrary to appellant’s assertion, at page 6 of the
principal brief, that “referring to a ‘hardware implementation
... of Watts’ is confusingly illogical,” we find it very
logical that the artisan implementing the process set forth by
Watts in flow diagram form would clearly implement it with
some type of hardware.
With regard to appellant’s argument, at page 4 of the
reply brief, that Carter is not combinable with Watts because
Carter is directed to stopping the clock, we disagree. Watts
teaches the reduction of clock frequency as in the instant
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007