Appeal No. 96-2203
Application 08/160,463
With respect to appellant’s argument concerning the significant advantages of the
claimed invention (See Brief at page 12), the Examiner states that interpreting the claim in
this manner would amount to reading limitations from the specification into the claimed
invention. (See Answer at page 11.) We disagree with the Examiner and agree with the
appellant. The advantages asserted by appellant merely emphasize the
difference between the prior art references and the invention as set forth in the language of
the claims. (See Reply at pages 3-4.)
CLAIM 2
The Examiner relies upon the teachings of Dixon to teach the resetting or clearing
of the identification codes in claim 2. (See Answer at page 6.) Dixon does teach this
feature generally along with the assigning of addresses, but Dixon teaches a SCSI bus
and a configuration bus connected to a master device having a processor. (See Fig. 1,
cols. 3, 6 and 8.) The master assigns the addresses to the various units. The processors
in the units control the forwarding of assignment information to subsequent units. The units
confirm their proper addressing with the master via the bus. Clearly, Dixon does not
remedy the deficiency in the prima facie case of obviousness set forth by the Examiner.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007