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 Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 7 under 35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