Appeal No. 1998-0219 Page 11
Application No. 08/265,000
examiner implies as much by recognizing that “a collision
would result” in Schuermann. (Paper No. 21 at 7.) Each
interrogation unit of the reference accounts for such a
collision, moreover, by listening for an acknowledgment to
ensure that its transmission was properly received and, if no
such acknowledgment is received, resending the transmission.
Col. 6, ll. 58-65.
The examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that
Natarajan or Mock remedies the defects of Schuermann. Because
the CSMA and ALOHA protocols used by Schuermann is subject to
simultaneous transmissions, we are not persuaded that
teachings from the prior art would appear to have suggested
the claimed limitation of “none of the sub-master control
signals are output at the same time ....” The examiner has
impermissibly relied on the appellants’ teachings or
suggestions. He has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 4
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007