Appeal No. 1997-4395
Application No. 08/351,044
operation, from an artisan's perspective, and discernible from
the logic presented in Figure 9 alone. The present
specification under the operative conditions described in
Figure 9 clearly indicates to the reader that subsequent skips
may be determined only after the interrupt timer has been
resynchronized such that additional potential, subsequent
skips up to the skip count identified in the lower right-hand
corner of Figure 9 may be determined after the initial first
skip. It is thus apparent to us that, utilizing the
determinative standard of review set forth in the earlier
noted case law in this opinion, no undue experimentation or
excessive amount of experimentation would have been necessary
from an artisan's perspective to make and use the claimed
invention.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 32 through 37, 39 through 44 and 46 under the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007