Appeal No. 95-3498
Application 08/176,330
319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Turning to Shah, we find that Shah discloses in column 4,
line 51, through column 5, line 10, a transmitting means, a
receiving means and a means for determining the type of the
one circuit module as recited in Appellants' claim 22. In
particular, Shah discloses that a linking routine polls all of
the motherboard slots to determine which I/O devices are
plugged into the slot. The linking routine transmits a code-
request signal to the slot. If a I/O device is plugged into
the slot, the linking routine receives identifying codes
signals from the I/O device and determines the type of circuit
module plugged into each slot. Therefore, we find that the
Examiner has met the burden of showing that the prior art
meets Appellants' claim limitations and thereby we will
sustain the rejection of Appellants' claim 22.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 8, 10, 11 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007