Appeal 2007-1427
Application 09/826,240
Independent claim 34
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 34 as
being unpatentable over Mittal.
Appellant asserts that Mittal does not teach reconfiguring a
reconfigurable circuit by altering a power characteristic applied to at least a
portion thereof based on a comparison between a transition rate and a
predetermined operating range. More specifically, Appellant argues that
Mittal does not teach reconfiguring a reconfigurable circuit since Mittal
teaches reducing power consumption of a circuit by throttling the
performance of the circuit. (See Mittal, col. 4, lines 19-28). Thus, Appellant
concludes that Mittal provides no motivation to one skilled in the art to
dynamically control the power utilization of a circuit by reconfiguring the
circuit (Br. 15-16).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner essentially restates the
arguments previously made with respect to independent claims 21 and 28
(Answer 11).
We note that the initial burden of establishing unpatentability, on any
ground, rests with the Examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “If that burden is met, the burden of
coming forward with evidence or argument shifts to the applicant. After
evidence or argument is submitted by applicant in response, patentability is
determined on the totality of the record by preponderance of evidence with
due consideration to persuasiveness of argument.” Id. at 1445, 24 USPQ2d
at 1444.
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013