Appeal No. 96-2203
Application 08/160,463
modify Dorfe with Fadem with a serial protocol. (See Answer at pages 10-11.) Appellant
argues that Fadem does not teach the use of a serial connection of the network, therefore
the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness. (See Brief at pages 6-
8 and Reply at page 2.) We agree with appellant. A review of Fadem shows that the
twisted pair which connects the units in a “daisy chained” (col. 4, lines 4-5) fashion actually
connects the units in parallel. (See Figure 5, far right side.)
Therefore, the Examiner has not provided any evidence of the single line connecting the
series connected units. Furthermore, the increase of efficiency and reliability asserted by
the Examiner, above, are merely conclusions not based upon the teachings of the
references relative to the claimed invention.
Appellant argues that Dorfe does not teach the computer transmitting the
identification setting command data including the identification code. (See Brief at page
11). We agree. Dorfe discloses the manipulation of the identification codes by the units
rather than the mere transmission thereof to subsequent units. (See col. 2, line 59 - col. 3,
line 3.) Assuming arguendo that the prior art references are properly combined, the prior
art does not teach or fairly suggest the claimed invention.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007