Appeal No. 1998-0747
Application 08/609,958
to the inputs and outputs of the components. However, even if
there were motivation to combine Yajima and Ozaki, the combination
would not result in the invention set forth in claims 1-7. For
example, with respect to Figure 2, Ozaki discloses output switches
30-1 and 30-2, but no input switches. Switches 32-1 and 32-2
operate in conjunction with the output switches and cannot be
identified as input switches.
The combination of Entenman with Yajima and Ozaki in the
further rejection of dependent claims 3 and 4 will not be
sustained for the same reasons that the rejection of claims 1-7 as
obvious over Yajima and Ozaki will not be sustained. The examiner
merely relied on Entenman to meet the limitations of claims 3 and
4 that the components are modems.
The rejection of claims 8-18 and 22-31 as obvious over
Entenman, Yajima and Ozaki will not be sustained for the same
reason that the rejection of claims 1-7 over Yajima and Ozaki will
not be sustained. No convincing motivation for combining Ozaki
with Yajima and Entenman has been established, and independent
claims 8, 22 and 24 all define a plurality of switches connected
to the inputs and outputs of components or modems.
The following new rejection is entered pursuant to 37 CFR
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007