Appeal No. 95-4937
Application 08/017,088
since it is in the ambit of communication systems, we agree with the gist of appellants’
argument in that Sindhu is unconcerned with “multi-stage networks” and we find no
reason that the skilled artisan would have been led to employ any of Sindhu’s teachings
relative to transferring data between multiple system buses and a cache controller to a
multi-stage switching network, as claimed.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the artisan would have found Sindhu applicable to
the multi-stage network environment of the instant claimed invention, the examiner has
never come to grips with the “destination checking” limitations of the instant claims. The
claims are directed to very specific interactions between the indicator and the receiving
node as to whether the receiving node should perform destination checking and the
consequences of such checking, relative to accepting or rejecting the message, if
destination checking is so indicated. We find no suggestion of this whatsoever in the
applied references.
Further, even if Sindhu could somehow be combined with the multi-stage network
indicated in APA, there is absolutely no cogent rationale by the examiner why such a
combination would have been made and/or how, exactly, the multi-stage network teaching
of APA is to be incorporated into Sindhu’s system.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007