Appeal 2007-0376
Application 10/280,259
Claims 10-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
unpatentable over Berstis.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is made to the
Briefs and Answer for the respective positions of Appellants and the
Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the briefs have not been considered (37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
Appellants argue that Berstis relates to an arrangement wherein the
proprietary bus is coupled to components that may be crucial for vehicle
operation without excluding the non-critical components from being coupled
to the proprietary bus if the manufacturer chooses to do so (Br. 5).
Appellants further assert that Berstis separates the nodes according to
whether they are proprietary and not based on how critical they are for
driving the vehicle and argue that the crucial components that are coupled to
the proprietary bus may not necessarily be critical for the operation of the
vehicle (Br. 4-5). The Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments is
focused on how separating the nodes in Berstis is the same as the claimed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013