Appeal No. 2001-2236
Application 07/955,669
SCSI address." We also refer to Appellant's arguments (Br5-6;
RBr1-3). The Examiner erred in finding anticipation. The
rejection of claims 1-11 is reversed.
(2)
Although we have already reversed the rejection, we address
limitation (2) for completeness.
As to limitation (2), the "Examiner asserts that Coulson
teaches asserting any single bit, by using each ID address that
corresponds to a data bit (see col. 4, lines 10-18)" (EA6) and
finds that "[a]ny of the single bits reads on any of the bit
assigned to each device connected to the SCSI [bus], and claim 1,
clearly teaches that any other [of] the devices connected to the
SCSI can be used to share the ID address to increase the number
of devices using the SCSI [bus]" (EA7). It appears to be the
Examiner's position that Coulson anticipates the "any single bit"
limitations because any of the ID addresses in Coulson could be
shared and because "any single bit" reads on the shared assigned
address bit.
Appellant argues that the Examiner improperly equates
Appellant's "any single bit" with Coulson's single, but assigned,
bit (Br5; Br6-7). It is argued that "Applicant's 'any single
bit' requires the system to be responsive to an arbitrary bit,
not one particular bit" (Br7) and that Coulson is responsive to
particular bits, not "any single bit." It is further argued that
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007