Appeal 2007-1464
Application 10/276,285
Appellants further contend that “Figure 4…shows that the power electronic
is enabled over a signal line (SFmx) directly connected between the wheel modules
(Rm)” and “[t]his possibility of direct signaling is totally missing the ‘Zittlau’
reference” (Appeal Br. 11). The method as recited in claim 9 does not require that
the power electronic is enabled over a signal line directly connected between the
wheel modules. As such, Appellants arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of claim 9.
Appellants also argue that the arithmetic units of Zittlau do not monitor each
other (Appeal Br. 12). We find this assertion unfounded given that Zittlau
specifically discloses that state of the first arithmetic unit 18 may be monitored by
the second arithmetic unit 19 (Finding of Fact 9).
Finally, Appellants argue that the arithmetic logic units of Zittlau are not
microcomputer systems (Reply Br. 10). We agree that an arithmetic logic unit
(ALU) as commonly used is not a microcomputer system or microprocessor. To
the contrary, a microprocessor is commonly made up of one or more ALUs.
Nevertheless, Zittlau discloses that the arithmetic units may be CPUs, i.e., central
processing units (Finding of Fact 6). The Specification does not specifically define
the term microcomputer system or microprocessor nor does it utilize these terms
contrary to their customary meaning (Finding of Fact 3). The customary meaning
of microcomputer is a small computer usually equipped with a microprocessor
(Finding of Fact 1). The customary meaning of the term microprocessor is a
central processing unit (CPU) on a single chip (Finding of Fact 2). Accordingly,
we find that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a microprocessor or
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013