Appeal No. 95-4937
Application 08/017,088
The examiner relies on the following references:
Lee 5,235,594 Aug. 10, 1993
Sindhu et al. (Sindhu) 5,195,089 Mar. 16, 1993
Additionally, the examiner relies on admitted prior art [APA] from page 1 of the
instant specification. More specifically, the examiner cites the statement that “Multi-stage
switching networks are gaining acceptance as a means for interconnecting multiple nodes
within modern digital computing systems.”
Claims 1 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner cites Sindhu in view of APA with regard to claims 1 through 5,
adding Lee to this combination with regard to claims 4 through 7.2
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that this application was remanded to the examiner by a
Board administrator for compliance with MPEP 1206(9) regarding a separate appendix to
the brief containing a copy of the appealed claims. The primary examiner waived this
requirement, as evidenced by his signature on page 2 of the remand and so the brief [Paper
No. 10], as filed, is properly before us.
2Apparently, there is an alternative rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
either Sindhu and APA or under Sindhu and APA with Lee.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007