Appeal No. 1998-0957
Application 08/258,409
output in the event of the match;
the interrupt output of the transceiver operatively coupled
with the interrupt input of the controller.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Stevens et al. (Stevens) 4,821,291 Apr. 11, 1989
Anders et al. (Anders) 4,827,395 May 02, 1989
Inagami 5,058,203 Oct. 15, 1991
Claims 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the invention. Claims 1-45 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness the
examiner offers Stevens, Anders and Inagami with respect to
claims 1-21 and 25-45 and just Stevens and Anders with respect
to claims 22-24.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner, the arguments
in support of the rejections and the evidence of obviousness
relied upon by the examiner as support for the obviousness
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007