Appeal 2006-2328
Application 10/131,049
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious, if not inherent, that the
DAT (digital automatic tracking) circuit 2 in Figures 1 and 2 of Arai falls
within the definition of microcomputer because DAT 2 includes a control
processing circuit 206, which is a microcomputer (Final Rejection at 3). The
Examiner reasons that the definition of microcomputer does not preclude
peripheral processing elements surrounding the microprocessor, such as the
synchronizing signal1 processing circuit 201 in Arai which is connected to the
control processing circuitry (microcomputer) 206 (id.).
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that DAT 2 is a
microcomputer just because it contains a control processing circuit 206 that is
a microcomputer (Brief at 6-8). It is argued that Arai discloses that control
processing circuit 206 can be an LSI of a one-chip microcomputer and does
not suggest that the microcomputer can be made up of more than one chip (id.
at 7). It is argued that "[b]oth Arai's microcomputer 206 and the Appellant's
microcomputer 30 (Fig. 3) are each a single chip LSI device" (id.), so the
DAT 2 in Arai is a circuit containing a microcomputer, not a microcomputer
containing a microcomputer (id.). It is argued that "Arai's control processing
circuit (microcomputer) 206 fails to perform the various functions of the
microcomputer required by the Appellant's claim 58" (id.). It is argued that
Figure 6 in the '443 patent does not show all of the components of the
microcomputer, which is a common patent practice (id. at 8).
1 Arai uses the term "synchronizing signal" whereas the '443 patent
uses the term "synchronous signal." The terms are interchangeable and refer
to the same thing. We sometimes use the term "sync signal" for simplicity.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013