Appeal No. 1998-3411
Application No. 08/548,113
from the local bus of the other module.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Bederman 4,209,839 Jun. 24 1980
Persaud et al. (Persaud) 4,368,514 Jan. 11, 1983
Hughes et al. (Hughes) 4,481,578 Nov. 6, 1984
Claims 8-11 and 14-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Persaud in view of Bederman.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Persaud in view of Bederman and Hughes.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellant
with regard to the propriety of these rejections are set forth in
the final rejection (Paper No. 12) and the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 17) and the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 16).
The Involved Subject Matter
Appellant’s invention and the disclosures of Bederman and
Persaud are adequately summarized at pages 2 and 3 of the brief.
Based on the nature of our opinion below, it is unnecessary to set
forth a description of the invention of Hughes.
Opinion
Appellant’s only argument with respect to claims 8-11 and 14-
17 is in the brief at page 4. It consists of the position that
neither Persaud nor Bederman teaches or suggests the claimed
subject matter comprising “any of the modules to become
temporarily the master of the local bus of the other module so as
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007