Appeal 2007-1427
Application 09/826,240
We have found supra that Mittal discloses reconfiguring a
reconfigurable circuit (see discussion of claims 21 and 28). We further find
that Mittal discloses dynamically controlling the power utilization of a
circuit by reconfiguring the circuit since Mittal explicitly discloses dividing
a system clock by two to implement a reduced-power mode (col. 8, ll. 29-32,
Fig. 2). Thus, we find Mittal teaches altering a power characteristic based
on a comparison between a transition rate (i.e., clock rate or frequency) and
a predetermined operating range (e.g., a 1x clock frequency vs. a divide-by-
two clock frequency).
With respect to the issue of motivation, the Examiner has
acknowledged that Mittal does not disclose the reconfigurable circuit
comprises a monitored circuit with a delay element and a multiplier (see
Answer 5-6). The Examiner asserts in the Answer that it would have been
obvious to an artisan to combine such well known elements (i.e., a delay
element and a multiplier) with the teachings of Mittal (id.).
After carefully reviewing the evidence before us, we find Appellant
has failed to traverse the Examiner’s conclusion that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to combine a delay element and a
multiplier with the teachings of Mittal (id.). Thus, we find Appellant has not
met the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument to rebut the
Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness. Because we find the Examiner
has met the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 34 as being
unpatentable over Mittal.
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013