Appeal No. 2002-1210
Application No. 09/483,018
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-11, 13, 14
and 18-22, Appellant argues that Lyon, by using equalizer 96 in
connection with balanced drivers, teaches away from using
balanced differential drivers and receivers in a chassis
environment (brief, page 7). Appellant further points out that
Lyon’s use of an equalizer is indicative of a large system which
requires cabling over varying distances between shelves or
equipment racks (id.). Additionally, Appellant argues that the
teachings of Hughes related to balanced audio signals fails to
provide adequate motivation to use the equalized, balanced
differential signal of the large system of Lyon in combination
with Petit, Hughes and Fukuda (brief, page 8).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner asserts
that neither the claims exclude the use of a equalizer nor Lyon’s
use of an equalizer in a multi-shelf/rack system teaches away
from the combination (answer, page 7). The Examiner reasons that
since Petit also mentions multiple shelves and racks (col. 10,
lines 60-68), the use of an equalizer does not teach away from
the combination (id.). Additionally, the Examiner relies on the
desirability of having balanced audio signals in Hughes (col. 4,
lines 14-17) and the high speed signaling in Petit (col. 1, lines
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007