Appeal No. 2001-0594
Application No. 08/929,153
event to change the signal line on the bus to provide a wake-up
indication.
The examiner’s response, at the penultimate page of the
answer, is that the second bus interface circuit is an “inherent”
feature because “it is understood that the interface circuit is
essential for connecting devices together.” The examiner’s
response to just about every argued claim limitation is that it
is “inherent” [see the penultimate page of the answer and the
preceding page]. The examiner cannot merely assert “inherency”
without a convincing explanation as to why such feature is
inherent. In order for something to be “inherent”, the claimed
limitation must necessarily follow from what is taught by the
applied reference. There is no indication in Walsh that the
interface circuit necessarily operates in the claimed manner or
that the entire bus in Walsh is necessarily inactive. Moreover,
even assuming, arguendo, that a second bus interface could be
considered “inherent,” that, in and of itself, does not explain
why such a second bus interface would need to be 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.
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007