Appeal No. 1996-4025
Application 07/995,591
network (SONET) communication protocol. We fail to find any
suggestion as to any desirability or reason for those of
ordinary skill in the art to modify this protocol to obtain an
asynchonous system. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hedlund in view of Burrows as
applied to claims 1 and 11 and further in view of Yanagi. We
note that the Examiner is relying on the same reasons as
above. Furthermore,
we find that Yanagi does not supply the missing teaching or
suggestion to modify Hedlund's synchronous system to become an
asynchronous operating system.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and
claims 1, 3 through 6, 8, 11, 13 through 16, 18 and 23
through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007