Appeal 2007-0642
Application 10/267,877
Appellants argue that if the modem 364 had a power-on reset operation
to boot an internal system program when supply voltage is received at the
main controller then the modem would boot and cause the call to be lost (Br.
12). Here, Appellants seem to interpret the supply of the voltage as the
trigger for the system program, but we find that Wallace would have the
program for retraining or limited retraining responsive to the signal from the
microprocessor which gets an indication from the power supply monitor.
We cannot agree with Appellants’ implied narrow interpretation of
independent claim 1.
Appellants argue that the Examiner is speculating as to the operation
of Wallace (Br. 13). We disagree with Appellants’ argument and do not find
that Appellants have identified any specific error in the Examiner’s
correlation to the express limitations recited in independent claim 1.
Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1.
With respect to dependent claim 2, the Examiner has identified that
the microprocessor or sub-controller blocks the output of the booting
prevention signal to the operation port of the main controller (Answer 6).
We understand the Examiner to maintain that the microprocessor uses the
hook-on state of the telephone to allow the modem to perform a full retrain
operation. The Examiner finds that this meets the feature “adapted to block
the output of said booting prevention signal.” We agree with the Examiner
that the change of the output of the microprocessor or the lack of an output
in response to the change in state would have met the broad language of
dependent claim 2. Since we do not find that Appellants have shown error
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013