Appeal No. 2002-1173
Application No. 09/510,640
cleared as the components of the integrated circuit are reset to
a predefined state (brief, page 14 and oral hearing).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that the claimed features discussed by Appellants are not recited
in the claims (answer, page 5). In particular, the Examiner
asserts that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “repeating
operations of the integrated circuit” would merely be “continuing
to provide the operation that was provided for prior [to] the
‘dip in the power supply’” (id.). Additionally, the Examiner
rejects Appellants’ argument that the information related to
operations performed prior to reset is erased and cannot be
reconstructed and contends that Hsieh provides for repeating the
operation that was provided before reset (answer, pages 5 & 6).
Before addressing the Examiner’s rejection based on prior
art, it is essential that we understand the claimed subject
matter and determine its scope. Accordingly, as required by our
reviewing court, we will initially direct our attention to
Appellants’ independent claims 1 and 9 in order to determine
their scope. “[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re
Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir.
1998). While, the limitation of “repeating operations of the
integrated circuit which ... have been (possibly) influenced by
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007