Appeal No. 95-3498
Application 08/176,330
module and to have each module include its own housing and its
own connector. As pointed out above, we find that the prior
art does suggest the modification to the Shah I/O boards.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of
Appellants' claim 11 for the same reasons as set forth above.
On pages 9 and 10 of the brief, Appellants argue that
there is no disclosure or suggestion of Appellants'
transmitting means
for transmitting a code-request signal from the processor to
one of the circuit modules, receiving means for receiving a
code signal from said one circuit module in response to said
code-request signal and means for determining the type of one
circuit module based upon the code signal received from the
one circuit module. Appellants argue that the Examiner has
not indicated what portion of the Shah autoconfiguration means
is structurally equivalent to each of Appellants' claimed
means as required by In re Donaldson Co. Inc., 16 F.3d 1189,
29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Our reviewing court has stated in In re Donaldson Co.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007