Appeal No. 1998-0476
Application 08/397,157
time from said second operating state to said first operating
state in which outputting of the monitoring signals is not
suppressed and then a monitoring signal is outputted.
The Examiner relies on the following reference:
MOTOROLA Semiconductor Technical Data, “Technical Summary 32-
Bit Microcontroller”, 1992, MC68F333 TS/D, pp. 3-7, 28-30,
100-102 and 110. (MOTOROLA)
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
lacking patentable utility; under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
Appellants regard as the invention; and under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over MOTOROLA.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
will not sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. §
101, 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, or 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner contends that the microcomputer of
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007