Appeal No. 1997-3426
Application 08/373,052
Claims 12, 18-24, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Lamport, Douglas, and
Underwood.
Claims 13-17, 25-27, 29, and 30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lamport, Douglas,
and Underwood as applied to claims 12 and 28, further in view
of Awiszio.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 7) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 12) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's position, and to the Appeal Brief (Paper No. 11)
(pages referred to as "Br__") and the Reply Brief (Paper
No. 13) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for Appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellants argue that the combination of Lamport,
Douglas, and Underwood does not teach or suggest at least the
limitation "wherein at least one received packet causes a
portion of the other circuitry to assume control of at least
some of the data processor signal lines for executing a
function specified by the packet" of claim 12 (e.g., Br12-16)
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007