Appeal No. 2002-2239
Application No. 08/876,450
processor, and matrix switch processor to be the “central
operating unit,” it appears that all the claim limitations may be
found within the description of Esch. If, to some extent, the
signal sources upstream are not be switched by a matrix switch
(see, e.g. reference numeral 105 feeding processors 111 and/or
112, or other signal sources hooked back into the communications
processor), it appears that such switching under the control of
the communications processor would have been obvious; especially
in view of the identical matrix switching arrangement made
downstream, thereby giving maximum flexibility between signal
sources and processors.
We decline to exercise our authority under 37 CFR 1.136(b),
as this interpretation of Esch has not before been raised, and
would benefit from further investigation by the examiner and the
appellant and additional prosecution. The examiner and appellants
should address this reading of Esch in view of the language of the
claims as interpreted above.
The Rejection of Claim 3 Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
over Esch in view of Drako;
The Rejection of Claim 5 Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Esch;
and
The Rejection of Claim 6 Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
over Esch in view of Ritter
Although not expressly stated by the examiner, each of these
rejections is founded on the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b), which we have reversed above. Consequently, these
rejections are likewise reversed for the reasons stated before.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007