Appeal No. 2001-1926
Application 08/777,722
focus, if not entirely, upon the teachings, suggestions and
showings in Bales itself with no additional evidence. It is
therefore not apparent to us that the manner in which the
examiner has quoted extensively from Bales itself as well as made
reference to additional references presents to us a prima facie
case of anticipation, particularly without a correlation of each
of the recited claimed limitations to Bales.
We also find no prima facie case of anticipation within the
teachings, suggestions and showings of Bales to the subject
matter set forth in representative independent claim 12 on
appeal.
Even the overall architecture presented in Figure 1 of Bales
does not correlate to the overall architecture of appellants'
disclosed Figure 1. A brief study of the abstract and summary of
the invention in Bales does not lead us to conclude that the
various applications recited in representative independent claim
12 on appeal are performed by the various types of controlling
functions in Bales. The examiner has made no attempt to
correlate structurally the at least two switch nodes required of
representative claim 12 on appeal. Even though it is readily
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007