Appeal No. 2000-0354
Application No. 08/682,471
integrated circuit structure as the functional unit itself as
required by the preamble as well.
We are unpersuaded by appellants’ arguments as to the
rejection of this claim beginning at page 3 of the brief. The
examiner does not rely upon Webster to teach the basic
requirements of the body of independent claim 1 of an energy
sensing circuit and of the first circuit for controlling, as
argued. The examiner’s views as we understand them and as
clearly indicated by Bajorek itself, are found in this reference
and not in Webster. Appellants’ arguments in the brief never
assert that Bajorek does not teach what the examiner asserts that
it does teach, but instead appear to argue only that Webster does
not teach features that the examiner does not assert are in this
reference anyway.
We do not sustain the rejection of the remaining claims on
appeal because we are in general agreement with appellants’
assertions with respect to them beginning at the bottom of page
6 of the principal brief on appeal. Dependent claims 2, 5, and
independent claim 16, (as well as independent claim 7, though not
argued by appellants) all require placement of the functional
unit in a low power mode when the measured or estimated energy
dissipation of the functional unit exceeds a predetermined value.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007