Appeal 2006-2328
Application 10/131,049
The Examiner repeats the extensive arguments from the Advisory
Action as to why DAT 2 is a microcomputer in the same sense as Appellant's
microcomputer (Answer at 14-19). The Examiner notes that since Figure 1 of
the '443 patent is said to be "Background Art," and not "Prior art," one cannot
assume that the patent owner has not drafted the claims to distinguish over the
"exemplary" monitor system of Figure 1 (id. at 14-15) which corresponds to
Figure 1 of Arai. The Examiner finds that the "microcomputer" structure in
Appellant's Figure 6 is not a microcomputer in the conventional sense of the
term because it is not based purely in software and uses dedicated circuitry
(id. at 15-16). The Examiner concludes that the definition of
"microcomputer" does not exclude "peripheral dedicated circuitry which
assists in the processing" (id. at 8), and finds that the synchronizing signal
processing circuit 201 of Arai is peripheral dedicated circuitry associated with
the control processing circuitry (microcomputer) 206 in the same way that the
circuitry in Appellant's Figure 6 is peripheral dedicated circuitry associated
with a microcomputer, so that DAT 2 is a microcomputer (id. at 16-17). The
Examiner states that claim 58 does not recite a one-chip microcomputer, the
microcomputer is not defined as a one-chip device, and the disclosure does
not appear to show a one-chip microcomputer (id. at 18).
Appellant replies that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
taken the Examiner's position that DAT 2 is a microcomputer just because it
contains control processing circuit 206 which is a microcomputer (Reply
Brief at 9). It is argued that Arai's control processing circuit (microcomputer)
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013