Appeal No. 1997-3426
Application 08/373,052
processor cannot assume control of the signal lines of the
other processor. As for the Examiner's reliance on the
transfer switch 16 as the "other circuitry," we fail to see
how the switch 16 assumes control over signal lines of the
processors 10 and 12. The transfer switch 16 merely performs
a switching function. The Examiner offers no explanation
beyond pointing to element 16. We find that Underwood does
not teach or suggest the limitation that "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"
(claim 12) or "assuming control over at least some of the data
processor signal lines and reading data from a memory location
that is accessible to the data processor" (claim 28).
Therefore, we do not need to reach the issue of motivation.
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to independent claims 12 and 28.
Awiszio does not cure the deficiencies of Lamport, Douglas,
and Underwood. The rejections of independent claims 12 and 28
and dependent claims 13-27, 29, and 30 are reversed.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007