Appeal No. 1997-3129
Application No. 08/301,743
Turning to a consideration of dependent claims 2, 3, 15,
16, 18, and 20, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
these claims as well. We agree with the Examiner that the
transceiver, counter, and decoder circuitry of dependent
claims 2, 3, 16, and 18 is suggested by the circuitry
illustrated in Figures 5a and 5b of Sauerwald. Similarly, we
find that the test pattern and signature register features of
claims 15 and 20 are suggested at column 9, lines 28-65 and
column 10, lines 60-68, respectively, of Sauerwald.
We next turn to a consideration of dependent claims 4-10,
12, 13, and 19 and note that, while we found Appellants’
arguments to be unpersuasive with respect to claims 1-3, 11,
14-18, and 20, we reach the opposite conclusion with respect
to dependent claims 4-10, 12, 13, and 19. Dependent claim 4,
upon which claims 5-8 depend, 12, 13, and 19 are directed to
sensing circuitry which determines the establishment of a data
link between data transceivers. While the Examiner recognizes
that Sauerwald has no disclosure of such feature, the Examiner
nevertheless concludes (Answer, page 5) that the skilled
artisan would have found it obvious to provide such a feature.
The Examiner, however, has provided no support on the record
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007