Appeal No. 2001-0594
Application No. 08/929,153
power consumption state in response to a change in voltage on
that signal line” [brief-page 4] and, in our view, the examiner
has not successfully rebutted that argument.
Thus, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-11 and
21-23 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
Turning to independent claim 12, this claim requires, inter
alia, that the second bus interface circuit is “responsive to a
wake-up event to change the signal line on the bus driven by the
second integrated circuit from a first to a second voltage level,
thereby providing a wake-up indication to the first integrated
circuit indicating that a wake-up event has occurred.” The
examiner urges that Walsh discloses this at column 29, line 55 to
column 30.
Our review of this section of Walsh does not support the
examiner’s contention.
As discussed by appellant, at page 8 of the brief, this
portion of Walsh discusses how a signal VCCON is generated. This
VCCON signal is not part of bus 104 and does not couple to the
first integrated circuit 102 or bus bridge 716 (which the
examiner indicates to be the first bus interface circuit).
Therefore, we agree with appellant that Walsh does not appear to
teach a second bus interface circuit responsive to a wake-up
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007