Appeal No. 2000-0671
Application No. 08/909,507
or circuit board 10.” Such arguments are not persuasive since they pertain to
limitations not appearing in the claims. For example, independent claim 1 recites
nothing about programming an ISP device and the claim calls for “at least one card,”
which includes only one card, which appellants apparently admit is disclosed by
Jarwala.
However, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 9 and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 (b) because we agree with other arguments made by appellants.
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, a socket for receiving an integrated circuit and
a connector interface, coupled to the socket, for removably coupling with one of the
plurality of interfaces.
It is the examiner’s position that the claimed sockets correspond to Jarwala’s
sockets 32-32k. However, these sockets connect Jarwala’s circuit board 10 to STEM
body 30. The examiner calls Jarwala’s STEM body 30 an interface board, which is
accurate enough. Thus, the examiner is equating Jarwala’s STEM body 30 to the
claimed “connector interface” and Jarwala’s circuit board 10 to the claimed “integrated
circuit.” Under such an interpretation, it can, indeed, be said that Jarwala discloses a
socket 32 for receiving an integrated circuit 10 but where is the “connector interface,”
as claimed, which is “coupled to the socket, for removably coupling with one of said
plurality of interfaces”? If Jarwala’s body 30 is the “connector interface,” and it might be
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007