Appeal No. 1999-0045
Application 08/688,235
Wells as to this rejection. The examiner relies upon Wells to provide the synchronizer
circuit of Figure 3 to provide the basis of the synchronizer of independent claim 15
according to the combination of references relied upon by the examiner. We agree with
the examiner's view of Wells to the extent relied upon, but emphasize that the timing
circuitry 42 of Figure 1 of Fandrich '300 is further shown in Figure 3 of this reference to
contain the power up/down circuitry 50, handshaking circuitry 54 and synchronizing circuitry
52, each of which have been further developed in their own respective later disclosed
figures in this reference. The stated function in independent claim 15 of the synchronizer
circuit is to enable the oscillator and disable the oscillator, the functions of which we have
already found in our earlier assessment of Fandrich '300 to include both stated functions of
enabling and disabling the oscillator.
Appellants' arguments with respect to the sixth and last stated rejection at pages
11-13 of the brief are unpersuasive since they rely upon an assessment of the references
relied upon which we do not agree with, principally appellants' view that Fandrich '300
does not teach the synchronizer circuit claimed, and as further developed according to the
synchronizer circuit 30 in Figure 3 of Wells which feeds reset circuitry operations to the
oscillator and as to the write state machine 32 in Figure 3 of Wells, the details of which are
further developed in Figure 4 of this reference.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007