Ex Parte DURHAM et al - Page 1




                              The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written                   
                                     for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.                            
                                                                                                 Paper No. 13              
                           UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                       
                                                      ____________                                                         
                                 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                        
                                               AND INTERFERENCES                                                           
                                                      ____________                                                         
                            Ex parte CHRISTOPHER McCALL and PETER JUERGEN KLIM                                             
                                                      ____________                                                         
                                                  Appeal No. 2000-2228                                                     
                                                Application No. 09/067,153                                                 
                                                      ____________                                                         
                                                         ON BRIEF                                                          
                                                      ____________                                                         
              Before JERRY SMITH, BARRY, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.                                    
              BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                          


                                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                                        
                     A patent examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, and 9.  The appellants appeal                               
              therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).  We reverse.                                                             


                                                    BACKGROUND                                                             
                     The appellants’ invention concerns “self-timed logic circuits.”  A self-timed circuit                 
              operates asynchronously on the concept of demand; it operates only when requested.                           
              Responding to such a request, the circuit generates outputs according to its internal                        
              scheduling, presents the results to the requestor, and then "goes to sleep" to await a                       
              subsequent request.                                                                                          






Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007