Ex parte OSBORNE et al. - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 96-2023                                                                                                                     
                 Application No. 08/139,642                                                                                                             

                          (b) operating means connected to said single input line                                                                       
                 to produce a sequence of a plurality of different handshake                                                                            
                 signals having respectively different data formats on the                                                                              
                 single input line to activate a transmitter capable of                                                                                 
                 transmitting a data format until an answer is received in a                                                                            
                 data format corresponding to one of the sequence of a                                                                                  
                 plurality of handshake signals, and                                                                                                    
                          (c) said operating means to produce a kiss-off signal                                                                         
                 corresponding to the received data format to signal the                                                                                
                 transmitter that data has been correctly received in said                                                                              
                 detector.                                                                                                                              
                          The examiner relies on the following references:                                                                              
                 Sedam et al. (Sedam)                         4,412,292                                    Oct. 25, 1983                                
                 Aoki                                                  4,486,750                                    Dec.  4,                            
                 1984                                                                                                                                   
                 Davis et al. (Davis)                         4,518,961                                    May  21, 1985                                
                          Additionally, the examiner relies on admitted prior art                                                                       
                 [APA] set forth on pages 2-5 of the instant specification.                                                                             
                          Claims 8 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103                                                                      
                 as unpatentable over APA in view of Aoki, Davis and Sedam.2                                                                            
                          Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the                                                                           
                 respective positions of appellants and the examiner.                                                                                   
                                                                     OPINION                                                                            

                          2A previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second                                                                           
                 paragraph, has been withdrawn by the examiner and is no longer                                                                         
                 before us.  We would note, however, that there does not appear                                                                         
                 to be any proper antecedent basis for “said detector” at the                                                                           
                 end of claims 8 and 9.  We leave any amendments to be made to                                                                          
                 these claims to the good auspices of appellants and the                                                                                
                 examiner.                                                                                                                              
                                                                           3                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007