Appeal No. 1997-2987
Application No. 08/190,389
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 27, 29 and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
We will, however, sustain the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The difference between Cornwell and the subject matter of claim 28, undisputed by appellant,
is that the latter requires a SECS protocol converter wherein data transmitted in a first SECS protocol
is converted into data corresponding to a second SECS protocol.
The examiner relies on Walsh to show that SECS interfaces were well known and concludes
that it would have been obvious to employ Walsh’s SECS interface in Cornwell “because this would
allow for optimal interfacing” [answer-page 8].
It is true that we have no evidence, in Cornwell, of a SECS protocol converter as explicitly set
forth in claim 28. It is also true that SECS interfaces were well known in the art [page 8 of the instant
specification and Walsh]. Appellant argues [principal brief-page 15] that none of the references
disclose a protocol conversion between units with different SECS protocols, as recited in claim 28. On
balance, we find for the examiner since Cornwell does
disclose a protocol conversion (using MAP/ MMS protocols) and it would have appeared obvious to
the artisan to employ other, known protocol interfaces, such as SECS, depending on the circumstances
requiring such protocol. While appellant argues that the references do not teach protocol conversion
dependent claims cannot save the rejection. Similarly, Walsh, added to Cornwell with regard to dependent claims 21
and 30 does not remedy the deficiency of Cornwell.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007