Appeal No. 96-2203
Application 08/160,463
CLAIMS 5-8
The Examiner relies upon Allen to teach “a plurality of units connected in series
(cluster modules of Fig. 3)....” (See Answer at page 6.) Appellant argues that Allen is
directed to a bi-directional packet network with multiple lines. (See Brief at page 16.) We
agree. Allen discloses multiple redundant paths for enhanced reliability, thereby not using
a single line for the serial transmission. (See col. 2.) The Examiner addresses the
forwarding of the packet to the appropriate location if it is not identified by the cluster
module. The controller in the cluster module compares the destination and determines if it
should be sent to the next cluster. (See Answer at page 7; Allen at col. 8, lines 25-50.)
Again, the Examiner has not provided a prima facie case concerning the initialization of
the identification codes as set forth in language of independent claims 5 and 7.
CLAIMS 9-13
Appellant relies upon the prior discussion and arguments concerning Dorfe,
Fadem, Dixon and Allen. (See Brief at pages 16-17.) Again, we agree with appellant that
the combination of the references does not teach the claimed invention as set forth in
independent claims 9 and 12 as discussed above concerning claims 1-8. (See Brief at
pages 16-17.)
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007