Appeal No. 1997-2987
Application No. 08/190,389
input/output interface” to the process or manufacturing equipment. In Cornwell, the disclosed machine
tool 20 would appear to correspond to the claimed process or manufacturing equipment. Thus, it is not
clear how the examiner’s proposed modification would result in a parallel digital input/output interface
to the machine tool 20.
The examiner explains further, at page 9 of the answer, that the direct interface of the probe to
the controller would result in both a direct connection to the process equipment and a parallel input
through the communications adaptor 26. Thus, the examiner seems to be implying that the proposed
modification would result in a direct interface between the probe 48 and the controller 46/machine tool
20 and, at the same time, a parallel digital interface of the probe 48 through interface 50 to
communications adaptor 26. We fail to find a suggestion in Cornwell that the connection of the probe
48 to the communications adaptor 26 via interface 50 is a “parallel digital input/output interface,” as
claimed. Figure 2, along with the attendant description in the specification, in Cornwell appears to
indicate that the connection 53 from I/O port 52 of communications adaptor 26 to probe 48 is a
“serial” connection, the only parallel ports shown being 54 and 56.
Accordingly, we do not find that the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter of claims 1, 22 and 27. Therefore, we also find that dependent claims
2 through 21, 23 through 26, 29 and 30 will stand with their independent claims. 1
1Cox was applied with regard to dependent claims 12 through 14 and 25 with regard to teaching a “queue”
but Cox does not remedy the deficiency noted with regard to Cornwell and so the application of Cox to these
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007