Appeal 2007-0376
Application 10/280,259
Further, Appellants’ arguments assume a universal definition for
“critical” component which cannot include the DASHBOARD CONTROL
MODULE of Berstis. We observe that criticality of a component is mostly
relative and a manufacture may designate components critical based on their
vehicle design. However, a determination of which functions are crucial or
“critical” to the operations of the vehicle is not needed since we observe that
the claims require that the nodes of the first group be merely “more critical”
than those of the second group. Therefore, although the “DASHBOARD
CONTROL MODULE” of Berstis may not be critical by itself, it certainly is
more critical than the audio and navigation systems coupled to bus 12
(Figure 1, cc. 2, ll. 55-60).
Therefore, by coupling the crucial nodes to the proprietary bus,
Berstis separates the nodes into two groups wherein the communications
related to one group of nodes is more critical than those of the other node.
Based on our findings above, we agree with the Examiner that Berstis
teaches the recited features and prima facie anticipates the claimed subject
matter in the independent claims 10 and 19 and dependent claims 11-18 and
20-31, argued together claim 1. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection
of claims 10-31 is sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013