Appeal No. 1998-0711
Application 07/989,027
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
The examiner cites Hartford as teaching a closed-loop
control system for controlling various elements of an
automotive vehicle. Although the examiner acknowledges that
Hartford does not disclose the claimed data transferring loop
through the serial port interface, the examiner finds such
feature to be old and well known in the art [answer, page 5].
Majeed is cited as a teaching of using two processors in an
automotive controller. The examiner also acknowledges that
Majeed does not disclose the claimed serial chain through the
control driver units and back to a serial entry of the
control unit, but the examiner again asserts that this feature
is well known in the art [id., page 6]. Paredes is cited as
teaching a control system in which serial communication is
disclosed. The examiner concludes that the claimed invention
would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103
in view of the collective teachings of Hartford, Majeed and
Paredes.
Appellants argue that each of independent claims 1, 14
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007