Appeal No. 96-1152
Application 08/001,091
We do not agree with the examiner’s view that the preamble
of each independent claim on appeal shows only an area of
interest and that the body must therefore recite the limitations
in the preamble. As expressed at pages 21 and 22 of the
principal Brief on appeal, the body of each independent claim
refers back to language specifically recited in the preamble of
each independent claim to aid in defining certain device and bus
features. As such, the recitations in the preamble cannot be
ignored.
The examiner’s view that the T1 signal is used as a
processor active signal (broadly interpreted) as expressed at the
bottom of page 5 of the Office action mailed on July 30, 1993 is
misplaced. The examiner has provided no evidence beyond
conjecture that this feature of independent claim 10, the only
independent claim that relates to a processor activation signal,
is present in Baker in any manner. Furthermore, we are aware of
no such teaching. Therefore, there would appear to be no basis
in Baker to meet the feature of independent claim 10 on appeal of
"utilizing said processor active signal to decode said encoded
set of signals to produce a second signal representing selection
of a device."
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007