Appeal No. 95-3125
Application 08/071,920
invention that a programmed computer would not be considered
to be a “hardware controlled multinode interface” as that term
is used by appellant.
The interfaces recited in claims 1 and 11 would
correspond to the connections between computer 20 and
computers 36 in Ketelhut. Ketelhut does not describe how
these two computers are interconnected except to note that the
connection is by way of an interface port. No description of
this interface port is offered in Ketelhut. Although Ketelhut
does disclose hardware components as forming part of each of
the I/O points within each module, this hardware would not
meet the limitations of the interfaces recited in these
claims.
Claim 1 recites that the bytes of information comprise
“a data byte, an error byte and an address/command byte which
defines the absence or presence of another data byte as well
as the address of the input/output device being addressed.”
The examiner argues that communications in Ketelhut are
inherently by way of bytes of information. Although it is
probably correct that communications in Ketelhut use
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007