Appeal No. 96-3274
Application 08/173,408
Claims 1-10 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Petersen.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 6) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 18) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's position and to the Appeal Brief (Paper No. 14)
(pages referred to as "Br__") for a statement of Appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to claim 1, Appellant argues only that
Petersen does not disclose (1) a network interface module that
is timed asynchronously with respect to a micro-engine, and
(2) a point-to-point interface. Apparently, it was agreed
that Petersen shows all the claimed limitations except for
these two features (Examiner Interview Summary Record, Paper
No. 7). However, we have trouble understanding the whole of
the Examiner's rejection.
The Examiner finds the "micro-engine for controlling said
system element" to correspond to the "host interface
logic 102" mentioned at column 9, line 48 (EA3). The Examiner
finds the "register located within and directly addressable by
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007