Appeal No. 2000-1699
Application No. 08/706,123
of data as recited in claims 25 and 27 [brief, pages 6-8]. The
examiner responds that the fact that Tejima suggests
“sequentially” and “polls” client devices, by definition one and
only one device is selected at any given time [answer, pages 9-
10]. Appellants respond that the sequential selection disclosed
by Tejima does not meet the recitation of one and only one as
set forth in claims 25 and 27 [reply brief].
We agree with the position argued by appellants. The
recitation of “one and only one” in appellants’ claims requires
that only one client device in total acknowledge receipt of each
bit broadcast by the master device. This precludes a plurality
of client devices acknowledging receipt, even if the client
devices acknowledge receipt in sequence. In other words, one
and only one means one total, not one at a time. Since the
sequential polling arrangement of Tejima does not meet the “one
and only one” recitation of independent claims 25 and 27, we do
not sustain the examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent
claims 25 and 27 or of any of the claims which depend therefrom.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007