Appeal No. 1997-0416
Application No. 08/125,406
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that there should be four separate groupings of claims paralleling
the chain of claim dependency. Appellants have not provided separate argument beyond
arguing claims 1 and 9. Therefore, we will address only two groupings which correspond
to the groupings in the examiner’s rejections. We will address claims 14 and 9 which are
the broadest claims in each respective group.
CLAIMS 1-4, 7-8 AND 14-18
Appellants argue that none of the prior art applied against the claims addresses the
problem of power saving with peripheral clocks when using alternative bus masters as
disclosed on pages 2-3 of the specification. (See brief at pages 5-7.) We agree with
appellants. Appellants argue the limitations of claim 1 and that the prior art does not meet
these recited functions. (See brief at pages 9-10.) We agree with appellants. Claim 14 is
broader than the argued limitations of claim 1 and we will address the language of claim
14 as it relates to these arguments.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007