Appeal No. 1997-2987
Application No. 08/190,389
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of appellant and the
examiner.
OPINION
With regard to independent claims 1, 22 and 27, all of which stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Cornwell, each of these claims requires the provision of a parallel digital
input/output (I/O) interface to process or manufacturing equipment. The examiner relies on probe 48 of
Cornwell, which is not directly interfaced with controller 46 as was conventional [see column 5, lines
15-35] but, instead, the probe is interfaced to an I/O port 52 of transputer 28 in the communications
adaptor 26. The communications adaptor corresponds to the instant claimed controller and the probe
48 corresponds to the instant claimed “data acquisition system” in claim 1. The examiner recognizes
that Cornwell does not provide a parallel digital I/O interface to the process equipment as is claimed
but contends that it would have been obvious to modify Cornwell “to maintain a directly interfaced
probe and controller because this would allow for direct control of the probe thus eliminating hardware
usage and time delays” [answer-page 4].
While we would agree that the artisan would have found it obvious to maintain a directly
interfaced probe and controller in Cornwell since Cornwell discloses that that was conventional, we do
not understand how such a modification would result in the claimed “parallel digital
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007