Appeal No. 95-3125
Application 08/071,920
would have been obvious to the artisan, the present record
does not support the use of address counters in the specific
manner recited in the claims.
As we noted above, Ketelhut is really typical of what
appellant has described as the background of the invention.
Although Ketelhut will control a plurality of input/output
devices just as appellant’s invention controls a plurality of
input/output devices, appellant’s result is achieved by a
combination of structure which is different from the structure
disclosed by Ketelhut. We are not in a position to say
whether there is factual evidence available which might
suggest the obviousness of the structure as claimed by
appellant. What we can say is that the only evidence of
record in this case does not teach or suggest the structure as
recited in appellant’s claims.
In summary, the structure as specifically recited in
independent claims 1 and 11 is not taught or suggested by the
distributed input/output system of Ketelhut. Therefore, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 11 or of claims 2-10
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007