Ex parte GOEDKEN et al. - Page 2




              Appeal No. 1997-3839                                                                                        
              Application No. 08/120,144                                                                                  


                                                    BACKGROUND                                                            

                     The appellants’ invention relates to reset recovery in a microprocessor controlled                   
              device.  An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary                       
              claim 1, which is reproduced below.                                                                         
                     1.  A method for recovering control of a microprocessor controlled device                            
                     affected by a reset condition, the device having volatile memory containing                          
                     predetermined data and state information, the method comprising the steps                            
                     of:                                                                                                  
                            evaluating the volatile memory for the predetermined data;                                    
                            initializing all locations of the volatile memory when the predetermined                      
                     data is not present; and                                                                             
                            initializing only predetermined locations of the volatile memory when                         
                     the predetermined data is present.                                                                   
                     The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                      
              appealed claims are:                                                                                        
              Nagasawa                            4,658,352                           Apr. 14, 1987                       
              Hamilton et al. (Hamilton)          4,819,237                           Apr. 04, 1989                       
                     Claims 1, 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being unpatentable over                    
              Hamilton.  Claims 2 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                    
              unpatentable over Hamilton.  Claims 5-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being                      
              unpatentable over Nagasawa.                                                                                 



                                                            2                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007