Appeal No. 1996-0347
Application No. 08/166,609
We now turn to the rejections based on Branson (or
Branson in combination with Intel). The examiner applies
Branson for the same reason Juzswik was applied, that is, to
supply a teaching of a counter coupled to a processor for
counting a number of events.
We agree with appellant that Branson suffers from the
same deficiency as Juzswik, i.e., there is no count of a
number of computer events, as claimed. Branson counts cycles
of an oscillator but this is not indicative of any computer
activity. As appellant explains, at page 5 of the initial
reply brief, “events indicative of activity in Branson are the
requests to gate network 72 by the Branson CPU 12 for access
to a particular chip. These are not counted.” Thus,
combining Branson with Intel would not result in the instant
invention as claimed.
Moreover, at column 10, lines 50-51 of Branson, it is
recited that the “five bit counter 56, counter 38 and flip-
flop 40, will always count an odd number of counts.” If the
count is always set to some odd number, it appears that
Branson cannot adjust the frequency of the clocking signal
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007