Appeal No. 96-0974
Application 08/024,299
receive control signals (flags) from the operation monitoring
channel 14 (col. 4, lines 11-14). As is apparent from the
figure, the receiving processing terminal 20 includes similar
fault detection and rerouting circuitry.
The examiner, after asserting that "Kohno teaches the use
of a multi-core cable" but "does not teach the remaining
elements of this claim, reads appellant’s claimed
"transmitting data processing means" on the "transmitting data
processing terminal at the first termination point" recited in
Lebby’s claim 1 (at col. 5, line 61), reads appellants’
claimed "receiving microprocessor" on the "receiving, data
processing terminal at the second termination point" recited
in Lebby’s claim 1 (at col. 5, line 38), and reads appellants’
claimed "transmitting demultiplexer" and "receiving
multiplexer" on the "controllable connecting circuitry"
recited in Libby’s claim 1 (at col. 6, lines 13-22). The
examiner concludes the rejection by stating:
It would have been obvious to anyone having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have included the features
displayed by Lebby et al. in the system
disclosed by Kohno since the microprocessor
based data processing equipment affords
flexibility and speed to the transmission and
- 15 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007