Appeal No. 1997-3426
Application 08/373,052
and the similar limitation in claim 28. We consider this
limitation dispositive of the obviousness rejections.
The Examiner does not mention this limitation as being
taught by Lamport in the statement of the rejection (FR2-3),
but also does not expressly find the limitation to be a
difference. It appears that the Examiner implicitly admits
that Lamport does not teach or suggest this limitation because
the Examiner relies on Douglas and Underwood for the teaching
of "other circuitry" that assumes control of the data
processor signal lines (FR3). Nevertheless, we have reviewed
Lamport and find that it does not teach or suggest the
limitation. The signal lines of the switch control processor
(SCP) 216 in the node circuitry of Figure 8 of Lamport is not
controlled by other circuitry in the node.
The Examiner states that Douglas discloses "other
circuitry" in Figure 8, item 202, which is caused to assume
control of the data processor signal lines (Fig. 8, item 206,
col. 199, lines 17-21, and col. 207, lines 26-31) (FR3).
Appellants note that the portion of Douglas specifically
referred to by the Examiner at column 199 refers to the
diagnostic network node used by the data router in Figure 13A.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007