Appeal No. 1996-3541
Application 08/275,307
of the other devices 11 and 12. As indicated at the bottom of column 2, this ROM stores
programs only for the slave processor 13. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 30
through 34.
We also reverse the rejection of each independent claim on appeal and, as a
consequence, each of the dependent claims so rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Andersen alone. As appellant brings out in the various briefs, the program memory 26
provides stored programs for the microcomputer 22 and not for the programmable
controller 12. Because this program memory 26 is taught at column 3, lines 21 and 22 to
be a PROM, the examiner's view that this obviously may be comprised of a SRAM is
misplaced because they represent different structural approaches to storing information.
Moreover, the key feature required of the claims that some external computer or device
program or reprogram the memory 26 as alleged by the examiner, is not met by Andersen
since it fails to teach this feature in any manner relative to the positions argued by the
examiner. The personal computer 10 in Andersen is not taught to program or reprogram
memory 26. Thus, the rejection of claims 1 through 21 and 23 through 35 as being obvious
over Andersen alone is reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007