Appeal No. 95-3498
Application 08/176,330
I/O circuit being each of the four specific types as recited
in claim 8. Therefore, we find that it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a I/O board to be
connected into one of the Shah identical slots that would only
have a single I/O circuit which could be one of the four types
of ad-mitted prior art I/O circuits as recited in Appellants'
claim 8.
Appellants also argue on pages 6 through 8 of the brief
that there is no suggestion in either Shah or the admitted
prior art to provide separate housing for the Shah I/O boards.
Appellants admit on page 1 of the specification that a
conventional process controller typically contains a plurality
of printed circuit boards within a housing. On pages 9 and
10, Appellants disclose that for their embodiment each of the
I/O circuits 60 is provided within a separate housing 66,
which may be plastic housing for example. Appellants do not
disclose that providing the separate housing 66 solves any
particular problem that cannot be solved by the conventional
admitted housing.
In In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555, 188 USPQ 7,9 (CCPA
1975), the court held that the test for design choice depends
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007