Appeal No. 1999-2418
Application No. 08/737,510
never indicates where this is taught in Urban and we find no
comparison of the condition of monitoring circuit, 2, with a
threshold value) and that the “reset signal may be considered
and the signal indicative of the condition of the device.” We
do not understand the quoted portion of the examiner’s
position. Perhaps there was a typographical error and the
examiner meant to say that the reset signal may be considered
“as” the signal indicative of the condition of the device.
Even so, if the reset signal, itself, is the signal indicative
of the condition of the monitoring device, Urban does not
compare this reset signal with a threshold value to provide a
varied program sequence. It is the comparison of the patterns
in the ROM and RAM which provides for the varied program
sequence. Further, if it is the reset signal in Urban on
which the examiner relies for a teaching of a signal
indicative of the condition of the device, 2, it is noted that
monitoring device, 2, is not a device “which cooperates with
and is controlled by the computing component,” as required by
the instant claims. Moreover, the examiner recognized this
deficiency of Urban in applying Abo for the teaching of a
controlled device, 12.
9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007