Appeal No. 96-0974
Application 08/024,299
Method claims 5-8, like apparatus claims 1 and 2, stand
rejected for anticipation by Kohno. Claim 5 recites inter
alia "transmitting test signals by said transmitting processor
to the addresses of a designated line." The examiner argues
that Kohno satisfies this limitation because his transmission
signal has a frame construction including a destination
address DA, citing column 2, lines 47-48. Appellants
correctly note that the destination address is the address of
another station, not the address of a transmitting line, as
required by the claim. Kohno also fails to disclose the step
of "initializing the apparatus for designating start addresses
of a main line in use and start addresses of an extra line not
in use, clearing a line count and an abnormal line count to
‘0', and setting a total number of the lines corresponding to
a final line count."
Appellants also correctly note that the examiner failed
to satisfy his initial burden under § 112, ¶ 6 and the PTO
Guidelines with respect to the step limitations of claims 5-8.
However, we do not agree with appellants’ argument that 9
9Brief at 23.
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007