Appeal 2007-1427
Application 09/826,240
representative claim for this rejection because we find it is the broadest
independent claim in this group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellant argues that “Mittal does not teach reconfiguring the
reconfigurable circuit but instead teaches maintaining the configuration of
the circuit and reducing power consumption of the circuit by throttling
performance thereof.” (Br. 10). Appellant asserts that “Mittal discloses
changing power consumption by altering a rate but does not disclose
reconfiguring a reconfigurable circuit by, for example, altering a rate.” (Br.
11, ¶ 1). Therefore, Appellant concludes that Mittal “does not teach
reconfiguring a reconfigurable circuit as recited in independent Claims 21
and 28.” (id.).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts that Appellant has
defined “reconfiguring a reconfigurable circuit” in the claims as “altering a
power characteristic applied to at least a portion thereof ...” (Answer 6; see
also claims 21 and 28). The Examiner reads the claimed “reconfigurable
circuit” on Mittal’s microprocessor (Answer 6; see also Mittal, col. 2, ll. 14-
19). The Examiner further reads the recited “at least one node located
within said reconfigurable circuit” on Mittal’s functional unit that the
Examiner corresponds to a node located within the processor (see Mittal,
col. 2, ll. 14-19; see also claims 21 and 28). The Examiner interprets
switching the functional unit between a normal mode of operation and a
reduced-power mode in Mittal as altering a power characteristic of the
functional unit (see Mittal, col. 5, ll. 25-30) (Answer 6).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference
that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013