Appeal No. 1998-0148
Application 08/317,990
displayed in Figure 7 [of Simpson] as a graphical (or pictorial)
representation.’”
First, we have not made this rejection, we have sustained
the Examiner’s rejection.
Second, we remain unpersuaded by Applicant’s arguments.
Appellant’s contention (page 3) that Simpson’s Figure 7
represents the matrix after a selection has been made is
irrelevant. The language of claim 1 requires no such
distinction. Appellant would have us read claim 1 on Simpson’s
Figure 4. Figure 4 also displays a representation of the matrix
of cross-point switches. In Figure 4, however, the lack of
connection paths represents that no switches have been closed.
Our decision discusses the details of connection paths only to
explain how the language of Appellant’s claim 5 is not met.
Appellant states “Since the switches themselves are
represented in the structure of Claim 1, only one
input is required,...” (page 5).
Again we note that a broad interpretation of claim 1 reads
on Simpson. Neither Appellant nor Simpson display the actual
components of a matrix of cross-point switches. Each display a
representation of such. Appellant’s claim 1 recites “input
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007