Appeal No. 96-3205
Application No. 08/157,198
said information entity so detected, said start bit (Sta)
being transmitted at said common transmission rate;
e) each of said subscribers (ECU1 to ECU4) determining
a state of said flag after expiration of said bus monitoring
time period (T ) for said subscriber determining said state of
U
said flag; and
f) only transmitting said information entities from one
of said subscribers if said subscriber does not detect that
said flag is set during said bus monitoring time period (T )
U
of said subscriber.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Metcalfe et al. (Metcalfe) 4,063,220 Dec. 13,
1977
Ryckeboer 4,584,575 Apr.
22, 1986
Tanaka et al. (Tanaka) 4,737,783 Apr. 12,
1988
Botzenhardt et al. 5,001,642 Mar. 19,
1991
(Botzenhardt)
Claims 51 through 62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner cites Ryckeboer with
regard to claims 51 through 54 and 57 through 61 , adding 2
Tanaka with regard to claim 55, Metcalfe with regard to claim
56 and Botzenhardt with regard to claim 62.
2The rejection of claim 57 was entered as a new ground
of rejection in the examiner’s answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007