Appeal No. 95-3498
Application 08/176,330
on whether
the use of the arrangement solves a stated problem.
Appellants have not argued or disclosed that the separate
housing provides a
solution to a problem not solved by the conventional housing.
Whether the I/O circuit is protected by the housing provided
for the controller or whether the I/O circuit is protected by
a separate housing is a matter of choice by a particular
designer but does not affect the functionality of the housing
or the I/O circuits. Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner's rejection of Appellants' claim 8.
On pages 8 and 9 of the brief, Appellants argue that
claim 10 would not have been obvious for the reasons set forth
for Appellants' claim 8. Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner's rejection of Appellants' claim 10 for the same
reasons set forth above.
On page 9 of the brief, Appellants argue that there is no
suggestion in either Shah or the admitted prior art to modify
the Shah I/O boards to provide a single I/O circuit in each
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007