Appeal No. 95-3125
Application 08/071,920
successive bytes of information, claim 1 requires more than
this. Claim 1 recites that the bytes of data must indicate a
specific relationship of the bytes of data as well as the
address of the input/output device being addressed. This
relationship is best illustrated by Figures 6A and 6B of the
application. Even if Ketelhut is presumed to transmit
information in the form of bytes, there is no suggestion
whatsoever that these bytes would be arranged to convey
information in the form and manner specifically recited in
claim 1.
Claims 1 and 11 recite that the address counter in
each secondary HCMI defines the unique address which is used
to activate the associated secondary HCMI. Although the
various I/O modules in Ketelhut must be addressable, the
addressing of these modules is clearly contained within the
microprocessors 36 rather that in an address counter as
claimed. There is also no address counter in the I/O points
of Ketelhut because the microprocessor 36 is shown connected
to each I/O point by separate, dedicated lines [see Figure 3].
Although the examiner has asserted that such address counters
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007