Appeal 2007-1427
Application 09/826,240
Examiner that Mittal discloses the recited limitation of “aggregating a
number of switching transitions associated with said node.” (Claim 29).
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29 as being
anticipated by Mittal for essentially the same reasons argued by the
Examiner in the Answer.
Dependent claim 31
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claim 31 as being
anticipated by Mittal.
Appellant notes that Claim 31 additionally requires that the step of
“determining a transition rate” (as recited in claim 28) is based on a number
of voltage changes in the at least one node. Appellant argues that Mittal
does not disclose determining the transition rate based on a number of
voltage changes in the at least one node because Appellant does not see
where Mittal discloses determining a transition rate of a least one node
(Br. 14).
We disagree. We note that we have found supra that Mittal discloses
determining a transition rate of a least one node (see discussion of claims 21
and 28 supra). Specifically, we have found that the recited step of
“determining a transition rate …” broadly but reasonably reads on altering a
clock rate to save power, as disclosed by Mittal (col. 5, ll. 1-3; col. 8, ll. 29-
32, Fig. 2). Because a digital clock signal transitions or switches from a low
or zero voltage potential to a higher voltage potential at a rate that
corresponds to the determined clock frequency, we find Mittal discloses all
that is claimed. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013