Appeal No. 1999-2052
Application No. 08/572,202
that claim 1 requires only that the CPU clock pulse is controlled
in response to one of a decreasing level of activity within said
CPU and said temperature rising to a level above a selected
reference temperature level. That is, it requires only one of the
two criteria, namely, either in response to the decreasing level of
CPU activity or the temperature level rising in the CPU. In any
event, we discussed the limitation of the decreasing level of
activity within said CPU in our decision at the pages noted
above. We reiterate that the claim language does not preclude
the condition of no activity for a predetermined amount of time as
disclosed by Smith et al. The recited decreasing level of activity
in claim 1 is a continuing process of decreasing of the level of
activity and it does include a state where the level of activity
has decreased to a zero level. Appellant also argues that there is
a distinction between “dynamic activity” and “static activity”
(rehearing request at page 13). However, we do not find such a
recitation in claim 1 which only speaks in terms of an activity
level and thereby includes any type of activity, be it static or
dynamic.
Regarding item number 5 (claims 55, 58, 59, 60 and 62,
rehearing request at page 16), we still are of the view that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007