Appeal No. 96-0974
Application 08/024,299
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Kohno 5,153,874 October 6, 1992
Lebby et al.
(Lebby) 5,218,465 June 8, 1993
Claims 1, 2 and 5-8 stand rejected under § 102 as
anticipated by Kohno. Claims 5-8 stand rejected under § 103
as unpatentable for obviousness over Kohno in view of Lebby.
Claims 1 and 32 are argued as a first group, claims 3 and
4 as a second group, and claims 5-8 as a third group.2
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that each
element of the claim in issue be found, either expressly
described or under principles of inherency, in a single prior
art reference. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Kohno discloses a redundancy data
transmission device which employs redundant transmission lines
A and B which connect a plurality of stations (S1 and S2 in
Fig. 1) (col. 2, lines 37-40). Figure 3 shows system having
five stations S1 to S5 connected by transmission lines A and
B. The signals transmitted between stations over lines A and
B have the format shown in Figure 2, including a destination
2Brief at 9.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007