Appeal No. 1998-3380
Application 08/542,591
regarded as abandoned and will not be considered. It is our
function as a court to decide disputed issues, not to create
them.”).
Analysis
We note that Appellants have elected, brief at page 4,
different groupings of the claims. We will now separately
analyze them according to the guidelines set forth above.
Claims 1 and 6-15
These claims are rejected over Crowder as modified by
Kogure and Seigel. We take claim 1 as the representative
claim of this group. The Examiner gives a lucid explanation
of the rejection of this claim on pages 2-3 of the final
rejection. We note that, according to the Examiner's
rejection, Kogure and Crowder are both used to incorporate a
power supply into the probe means shown in Crowder, while the
other claimed elements of claim 1 are shown by Crowder alone.
Appellants assert, brief at page 7, that "the Crowder Patent
in no way discloses that a processor is coupled to a serial
port connector, and that a medium attachment unit (MAU) is
coupled to the processor, as recited in independent claim 1."
We disagree with Appellants' position. We find that Figure 2
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007