Appeal No. 1998-2435
Application No. 08/516,216
between the outside box and the subscriber terminal. Thus,
rather than suggesting using the Sonet format over the twisted
pair, Look teaches away from the proposed modification. See
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1599
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
Second, the examiner has provided no art that suggests
using the Sonet format between the outside box and the
subscriber terminal for both ATM and ISDN signals. Although
Parruck discloses substituting an alarm for part of the
overhead portion of the Sonet frame, none of the prior art
teaches using the overhead portion of the Sonet frame for ISDN
signals. Therefore, the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness, and we cannot sustain the
rejection of claims 2 through 4.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007