Appeal No. 96-2203
Application 08/160,463
Therefore, it is clear that the prior art applied against the claims does not teach or
fairly suggest the claimed invention as set forth in claims 1, 5, 7, 9, and 12 regarding
the series connection of a plurality of units, and initialization thereof by a computer via a
single line to a first unit of the serially connected units.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the Examiner. Upon evaluation of all
the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the
Examiner is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
claims 1, 5, 7, 9 and 12. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 5, 7, 9, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Since not all the limitations of independent claims 1, 5, 7, 9, and 12 are suggested
by the applied prior art, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of appealed claims 2-4,
6, 8, 10, 11 and 13 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007