Appeal No. 2000-0377
Application 08/777,841
the Examiner has not shown where Hotka teaches the limitation of
"examining a group of the electronic circuits and identifying the
type of each electronic circuit within the group" in claim 1,
paragraph (b)(i). It is argued that Yamada does not transmit
data indicating the "type" of electronic circuit within the group
as recited in paragraph (b)(ii), but only transmits data
indicating the "type" of push-button (round or square) which is
to be displayed, and does not transmit "image-data corresponding
to specific types" as recited in paragraph (b)(iii) (Br10-11).
It is argued that the Examiner's rationale in the final rejection
("ease of information retrieval for the user") merely sets forth
a supposed characteristic of the combination of references and
does not provide a motivation for combining the references in the
first place (Br14). Moreover, it is argued that the "ease of
use" rational is purely conclusory (Br14-15). Appellant further
argues that providing transmission of information in Hotka is not
valid motivation since Hotka already provides this function
(Br15) and such modification would change the principle of
operation of Hotka (Br16).
Hotka discloses that a communications node (shown as 1633 SX
in figure 1) includes a bay that consists of one or more shelves
of various subcomponents. For example, the OFFICE02 node 14
(figures 1 and 2), as shown in figure 3, has Bay 2, designated by
block 72 and includes the shelves that bracket 78 bounds, and
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007