Ex Parte Handgen et al - Page 3

              Appeal 2007-0439                                                                       
              Application 10/630260                                                                  
                    second integrated circuit component, and the third integrated circuit            
                    component are provided in separate integrated circuit chips.                     
                                                                                                    
              11.  An integrated circuit component comprising two independent                        
                    logic portions, each logic portion being capable of being alternatively          
                    configured to communicate with a host integrated circuit via a portion           
                    of a system bus and a companion integrated circuit and to receive                
                    information that is communicated from the companion integrated                   
                    circuit, which information was communicated to the companion                     
                    integrated circuit via a portion of a system bus.                                

                    The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on             
              appeal is:                                                                             
              Estakhri (‘906)   US 6,172,906 B1  Jan. 9, 2001                                        
                                           REJECTIONS                                                
                    Claim 7 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for                
              being indefinite.  Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 7 under 35            
              U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph, in view of Appellants’ argument presented in              
              the Appeal Brief. (Answer 9).                                                          
                    Claim 11 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph, for being            
              indefinite.  Examiner has maintained the rejection of claim 11 under 35                
              U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph, and argued that the word “alternatively” renders          
              the claim indefinite. (Answer 9).  Appellants have argued against this                 
              position of the Examiner, but have mentioned that they would be agreeable              
              to an Examiner’s amendment that deletes the term “alternatively”.  (Br. 9).            
              However, the Examiner has not acted upon that offer, so we will proceed                
              with the rejection still standing in the case.  We do note, in passing, that the       





                                                 3                                                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013