Appeal No. 96-0241
Application No. 07/617,740
means and a recording means in the business transaction data
entry systems. Thus, the examiner turns to Kubota in one
rejection for the disclosure of data check circuits for detecting
errors in transmitted data. The examiner then concludes,
erroneously, in our view, that “checking errors on data
inherently involves the checking of a communication line over
which the data is being transmitted” [page 4-principal answer].
In the new ground of rejection, relying on Takahashi, alone,
the examiner reasons that because failure detecting means are
well known, it would have been obvious to “incorporate a failure
detecting means to check the communication line since the
communication line is the essential link in transmitting and
receiving data” [page 6-principal answer] and because recording
means are well known, it would have been obvious “to record or
store business transaction data upon detecting failure in a
communication to have a continuous record of all the data for
future utilization” [page 6-principal answer].
The problem with the examiner’s rationale with regard to the
rejection of claims 1 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 in view of
Takahashi and Kubota is that checking errors on data is not,
inherently, a check on the failure of a communication line. It
is, of course, possible that a data error might be the result of
a failed communication line. But a data error may also be the
result of noise, parity error, alignment error, etc. Inherency
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007