Appeal No. 1997-0333
Application 08/521,162
Hayes. Our review of Hayes, including the processor ring structure of Hayes’ Figure 7.55(c) on page
650 relied on by the examiner, fails to reveal a main control system. In fact, Hayes appears to indicate
the contrary, that instead of a main control system, the processor ring structure itself serves to control
operation of the communications system (i.e., each individual slave processor can serve as a master if
called upon). We are not persuaded by the examiner’s arguments that "there must be a main control"
since "the reference fails to explicitly mention that it has a main control system" and since "the topology
is meaningless in the absence of a controller" (final rejection of parent application, paper number 20,
page 1). The examiner has not adequately shown that Hayes teaches or would suggest a main control
system, nor has the examiner provided any plausible reason as to why the ordinarily skilled artisan
would have added one.
Appellant correctly argues that "Hayes does not have a parallel redundant path" as required by
representative claim 1 (see Brief, page 7). We find it significant that the examiner has failed to address
this point of argument in the Answer. We agree with appellant that Hayes does not teach or suggest
this feature, and find that the pairs of unidirectional (full duplex) lines of Hayes (page 650) fail to meet
the function or the clear language of claim 1 of "a parallel redundant path communicating with the
nodes" (claim 1 on appeal).
Appellant argues (Brief, page 7) that Hayes fails to meet the limitation of the claims of
reconfiguring around a faulty node. The examiner (Answer, page 2) states that Hayes meets the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007