Appeal 2007-1427
Application 09/826,240
claim 31 as being anticipated by Mittal for essentially the same reasons
argued by the Examiner in the Answer.
Dependent claim 32
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claim 32 as being
anticipated by Mittal.
Appellant argues that claim 32 additionally requires tracking a period
of operation of the reconfigurable circuit and employing the period of
operation when determining the transition rate. Appellant again contends
that because Mittal does not teach determining the transition rate of at least
one node that it follows that Mittal does not teach tracking a period of
operation of the reconfigurable circuit and employing the period
of operation when determining the transition rate (Br. 15).
We disagree. We have found supra that Mittal discloses determining
the transition rate of at least one node (see discussion of claim 31).
Furthermore, we find Mittal discloses tracking a period of operation of the
reconfigurable circuit (i.e., functional circuit) and employing the period of
operation when determining the transition rate (see Mittal’s up/down counter
and associated activity-level functions, where, in one embodiment, the
activity monitor enforces a maximum sustainable duty cycle of fifty percent,
col. 6, ll. 30-32, and associated discussion col. 6, ll. 13-49). Therefore, we
find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 32 as being
anticipated by Mittal.
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013