Appeal No. 96-1738
Application 08/040,428
independent claim 19 of the step of determining being
conducted in such a manner that the deter-mination to transmit
each of the counterpart pairs of signals is done independently
of the other counterpart pairs of signals would have been
obvious to the artisan in view of Korpi alone. We,
therefore, agree with appellant's position at the top of page
29 of the principal brief on appeal that there appears in
Korpi to be no teaching of controlling a transmission of
counterpart reset signals independently of other bidirectional
signals and that, to the extent there is a controlling
operation of the busy signals, they appear to be dependent
upon another bidirectional signal, the select signal.
Generally speaking, we do not agree with the examiner's
view at page 4 of the answer that it is irrelevant as to what
specific control signals are used in Korpi to control the
converter. Indeed, the exact opposite would be discerned in
our view by the artisan from Korpi's teachings. Overall, we
agree with appellant's comment at the bottom of page 2 of the
reply brief that even though both Korpi and the present
claimed invention achieve a measure of translation between
single-ended and differential signals in a SCSI environment,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007