Appeal No. 1999-0045
Application 08/688,235
controllers for performing these operations on the flash cell arrays per se. It is further
stated there that these micro controllers were typically “driven” by the oscillator circuit
associated therewith, which is further stated in
the sentence bridging pages 1 and 2 to synchronize the operation of the micro controller.
The statement in the admitted prior art portion of the specification at the top of page 2
relied upon the examiner indicates that the oscillator circuit is disabled after the micro
controller executes a user command and shuts down. This is consistent with the
disablement operation of the oscillator circuit when the operation is complete at the end of
claim 1 on appeal. This disablement of the oscillator is said to halt the micro controller and
reduce power consumption in accordance with the preamble of representative
independent claim 1 on appeal. Lines 7 and 8 of this portion of page 2 of the specification
indicates that the “oscillator circuit is then re-enabled when a subsequent user command is
received.” This says nothing more than the fact that the oscillator circuit is not re-enabled
or not enabled if a subsequent user command is not received. This is more consistent with
the actual language of the entire disablement clause at the end of representative claim 1
on appeal. Again, as reasoned earlier with respect to the first stated rejection, this is only
common sense in the art to the extent
the artisan would fully appreciate operationally the functional sense, to the extent broadly
recited, at the end of representative claim 1 on appeal based on the stated functionality of
the admitted prior art.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007