Appeal No. 96-0950
Application No. 07/727,932
receive data. Examiner’s Answer at 8, lines 9-13. Further, the
examiner held that it would have been obvious to add switching
means into the Quinquis system because it would allow Quinquis to
both transmit and receive data. Examiner’s Answer at 5, lines
15-20.
The examiner’s finding that switching between data
transmission and data reception was well known in the art does
not lead one to the claimed invention. The recited switching
means does more than switch between data transmission and data
reception. It switches a processor to form either a gathering
system or a scattering system. As discussed above, neither
Quinquis nor Katzman suggested a system for gathering or
scattering data between a single processor and a plurality of
processors. Therefore, there was no motivation to add to the
cited art a switching means for switching a processor to form
either a gathering system or a scattering system.
2. AND Means
The AND means of Claims 10 and 14 raise the same issues
discussed above relating to the AND means.
When viewed as a whole, the cited prior art did not suggest
a data gathering/scattering system having (1) the recited
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007