Appeal No. 1999-0474
Application No. 08/674,452
The examiner responds (Answer at 6-11) that appellants’ arguments appear to
be based on preamble language of claim 1, and, even if the scope of the claim is
limited by the preamble, the limitations are met by Oho. More to the point, the
examiner asserts (id. at 10) that Oho teaches “a wiring logic table which identifies a
candidate(s) from a plurality of load terminals which may be controlled by a selected
input control switch (see col. 3, lines 45-47; col. 7, lines 50-60).” Appellants respond, in
turn, that the claims are drawn to a design system that submits candidates to a
designer. “Oho’s logic table is predetermined and does not offer any candidates which
may be controlled.” (Reply Brief at 2.)
In view of the respective positions set out by the examiner and appellants, there
does not appear to be any substantial disagreement with respect to the details of the
actual system disclosed by Oho. Rather, the controversy turns on claim interpretation.
Does instant claim 1 distinguish over the previously designed -- i.e., the end product --
system described by Oho?
We agree with appellants that the system of Oho does not teach the limitations
ascribed by the rejection. Claim 1 requires that the processor identify candidates from
the plurality of load terminals which “may be controlled” by the selected one of the
control switches. In our opinion, the relevant language of claim 1 does not include
within its scope the wiring logic table and associated structure described by Oho. The
reference makes clear (e.g., col. 10, ll. 21-66) that the wiring logic table (CCTBL) is
located in read-only memory (ROM), and configuration of the wiring system does not
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007