Appeal No. 1997-2899
Application No. 08/385,574
first communication link and the second
communication link, for monitoring the
information from the first communications link
to detect the fault indication signal, and for
replacing the information from the first
communications link with corresponding
information from the second communications link
upon detection of the fault indication signal.
The Examiner relies on the following reference:
Yamada 5,343,477 Aug. 30, 1994
Claims 24 through 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Yamada.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for 1
the details thereof.
OPINION
After careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 24 through 46 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
1Appellant filed an appeal brief on September 12, 1996.
Appellant also filed a reply brief on January 2, 1997 which
was acknowledged in the communication mailed January 29, 1997
and entered by the Examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007