Appeal No. 1999-1802
Application No. 08/806,466
resource allocator routes multiple versions of a common source to a particular device.
(See brief at page 4.) We agree with appellants. From our review of Lenchik, we find no
express teaching of the subject matter asserted by the examiner to be present at col. 4,
lines 36-59. (See brief at page 5.) While the resource allocator 110 may teach or suggest
some switching, Lenchik is silent as to the operation of this element. To interpret Lenchik
to teach detailed switching between plural units and sites would be speculation on our part,
which we will not do. Furthermore, the examiner has not provided any other teaching or a
line of reasoning why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to have the allocator perform the claimed switching. Therefore, we
agree with appellants that the combination if properly combined would not have taught or
suggested the invention as recited in
claim 17, and we will not sustain the rejection of claim 17. Independent claims 1, 6, 7, and
10 contain similar limitations concerning the switching of the input signals to a selected
voter from plural voters, therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of these independent
claims and their dependent claims 2-4, 8, and 9.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007