Ex Parte HAMDI et al - Page 2




            Appeal No.2002-1516                                                                              
            Application No. 09/052,744                                                                       


                   Appellants’ invention relates to a wireless universal serial bus link for a computer      
            system.  An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary            
            claim 1, which is reproduced below.                                                              
                   1.    A computer system comprising:                                                       
                         a computer including at least an upstream USB port;                                 
                         a peripheral hub device including at least a USB host port;                         
                         a first transceiver coupled to the upstream USB port of said                        
                   computer; and                                                                             
                         a second transceiver coupled to the USB host port of said                           
                   peripheral hub device, said first and second transceivers cooperate to                    
                   form a wireless USB bus link between said computer and said peripheral                    
                   hub device.                                                                               

                   The prior art of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed             
            claims is as follows:                                                                            
            Burnett et al. (Burnett)               5,870,080                       Feb. 9, 1999              

                   Claims 1-4, 6-11, 14, 17, 18, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as          
            being unpatentable over Burnett.                                                                 
                   Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and             
            appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's             
            answer (Paper No. 22, mailed Jun. 5, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support of            



                                                     2                                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007