Appeal No. 1998-1106
Application No. 08/593,110
master/slave relationship performs a data logging function
when it receives, stores and retransmits data that flows back
and forth between the FA and the PLCs (translation, pages 3,
4, 7 and 9). Accordingly, the obviousness rejection of claim
1 is sustained because all of the limitations of claim 1 read
on the teachings of Kabe. In affirming a multiple reference
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Board may rely on less
than the total number of references relied on by the examiner.
In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA
1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458, n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444,
n.2 (CCPA 1966). The teachings of Burke are merely cumulative
to those found in Kabe.
The obviousness rejection of claim 5 is sustained pro
forma because appellant has not presented any arguments
challenging the propriety of the examiner’s rejection of this
claim.
configuration in a network “there is only one master PLC. The
master sends commands out to the other slave PLCs, and they
respond appropriately. The slaves on the network never
initiate their own commands--they always respond to what the
master commands them to do.” At page 2551, the same excerpt
clearly shows that PLCs have memory.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007