Appeal No. 2000-0550
Application 08/706,114
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindermann Mashinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We note that the claim scope of both independent claims 1
and 4 covers the limitation requiring four network interfaces and
two bridges, which provide two separate, independent couplings
between the first ring system and the second ring system. In
particular, claim 1 requires:
at least two ring systems comprising each two network
interfaces (85, 89; 86, 90) are provided which ring systems
comprise each at least one bridge connection (83, 84; 87, 88) and
in that a first network interface (85) of a first ring system and
a first network interface (86) of a second ring system are
coupled via at least a first bridge connection (83, 84) for
transmitting the cell stream between the two ring systems,
and a second network interface (89) of the first ring system and
a second network interface (90) of the second ring system are
coupled via at least a second bridge connection (87, 88) for
conveying the cell stream between the two ring systems.
Appellant argues on page 4 of the brief that Basso does not
teach the Appellant’s claimed limitations as required under
35 U.S.C. § 102. In particular, Appellant argues that Basso does
not teach two interface elements in one ring system each
connected to a respective bridge which in turn is connected to a
respective interface element in a second ring system.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007