Appeal No. 97-1638
Application 08/371,446
Claims 4, 5, 8 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellant with regard to the propriety of these
rejections are set forth in the final rejection (Paper No. 18) and the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 24)
and the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 23).
Opinion
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 6, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The
examiner has not addressed appellant’s argument that the above claims distinguish over the cited
references in the recitation of a solid-state disk card and an OS/application card. Furthermore,
appellant argues that it has not been shown in the rejection that any of the prior art references teaches
or suggests IC cards detachably mounted to a mother board having a main bus and an input/output bus
separated by a bus interface card. The examiner’s position that Mitchell, Lunsford, Le and Ogawa
disclose electronic devices which “…should have mother boards” having a main bus and an
input/output bus is not supported by evidence. Even if it were presumed the prior art suggests the use
of a mother board, there is no showing that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art to include the claimed bus interface card on the board.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007