Appeal No. 2001-2236
Application 07/955,669
The Examiner relies on the following reference:
Coulson et al. (Coulson) 5,367,647 November 22, 1994
(effective filing date August 19, 1991)
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Coulson.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 24) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 32) (pages 2 referred to as "EA__")
for a complete statement of the Examiner's position, and to the
brief (Paper No. 31) (pages referred to as "Br__") and reply
brief (Paper No. 33) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for a
statement of Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The claims are argued to stand or fall together (Br3).
Claim 1 is analyzed as representative.
Coulson is directed to the same general problem addressed by
Appellant of increasing the number of devices on a SCSI bus
without violating the SCSI standard. The issue on appeal is
whether Coulson employs the same claimed method and apparatus.
Appellant argues that Coulson does not teach: (1) "the
separate target device not being assigned a SCSI address" because
Coulson requires that the target device be assigned an address
that is shared with an initiator device; and (2) "the separate
target device determining during the SELECTION phase whether any
2 The actual pages of the examiner's answer are unnumbered.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007