Appeal No. 1997-0884
Application 08/260,148
track of the fact that the transmitter has been used at least
once can be called a "flag," although the purpose of the flag
is different than in the claimed invention. Appellants do not
appear to challenge this reading in the Reply Brief, but rely
on the argument that Lindmayer does not teach reconfiguration.
We find that the step of "checking the flag if the
integrated circuit is later configured as a transmitter" is
not met by Lindmayer. The Examiner interprets claim 1 to not
require reconfiguration of the integrated circuit. The
Examiner states that the claim phrase "if the integrated
circuit is later configured as a transmitter" does "not
positively recite the IC being configured as a transmitter"
(EA5) and "[i]f the IC is not later configured as a
transmitter, the checking step is not executed" (EA5). Thus,
the Examiner apparently reads the "checking the flag if the
integrated circuit is later configured as a transmitter" and
the "modifying the code if the flag is set" steps out of the
claim because they may not occur. This claim interpretation
is erroneous. The claim language requires that the integrated
circuit can be "later configured as a transmitter" after it
has first been used as a receiver; thus, claim 1 requires the
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007