Appeal No. 1998-0710
Application 08/625,379
agree with the conclusion reached by the examiner. Although
we do not agree with the examiner’s view that the searching
technique of Newman meets the claimed invention, we do agree
with the examiner that the flooding technique meets the
claimed invention. The searching technique does not meet the
claimed invention because claim 21 recites that a plurality of
communication paths are simultaneously active whereas the
searching technique of Newman sequentially tests one path at a
time. However, we agree with the examiner that the flooding
technique of Newman fully meets the invention as recited in
claim 21.
The flooding technique of Newman simultaneously activates
all free communication paths between an input message and the
targeted destination for that message [see column 6, lines 50-
52]. In our view, this operation does satisfy the claim
recitation that output multiplexers be targeted and commanded.
Since only paths which relate to the desired destination in
Newman are flooded, we agree with the examiner that this
constitutes an identification of a target output and a command
to that target output.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007