Appeal No. 2003-0340
Application No. 09/096,403
plurality of downstream ports as required by the claims.
Appellants also argue that the signal combining circuit
identified by the examiner does not meet the limitations of the
claims with respect to the first signal combining circuit.
Finally, appellants argue that the network cable of Pasternak is
not connected to the top port and each of the downstream ports as
claimed. Appellants assert that Kim does not provide any of
these missing elements from Pasternak [brief, pages 5-6]. The
examiner’s response fails to address the four limitations of the
claims discussed in appellants’ arguments [answer, pages 12-13].
Appellants respond that the signal combining circuit of Pasternak
and the controller of Kim do not satisfy the limitations of
claims 1 and 18 [reply brief].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 18 or of any of the other claims on
appeal for the reasons argued by appellants in the briefs. We
agree with appellants that the examiner has failed to show
several features of the claimed invention. The examiner,
therefore, has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. The examiner has also failed to rebut appellants’
reasonable arguments set forth in the briefs. There is no basis
to sustain the examiner’s rejection on this record.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007