Appeal No. 2003-1473
Application No. 09/336,649
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 13, mailed
December 17, 2002) for the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the
appeal brief (Paper No. 12, filed November 20, 2002) for
Appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In rejecting the claims, the Examiner asserts that each of
the SCSI switches of IBM TDB, between the two sections of the bus
connecting devices 1-6, is the same as the claimed repeater
(answer, page 4). However, the examiner acknowledges that IBM
TDB does not teach the step of automatically altering the SCSI ID
of each SCSI device on the second bus in response to the enabling
of the repeater and relies on Pascarella for disclosing
selectively interconnecting host buses and automatically altering
the SCSI device IDs (id.).
Appellant argues that the claimed term “repeater,” as
discussed on page 3 of the specification, is intended as a device
“capable of picking up a signal, from a host, and reproducing the
signal to provide an enhanced signal for devices on the bus
(brief, page 4). Appellant specifically argues that the switches
disclosed in IBM TDB are not repeaters since they do not
reproduce a signal and are merely for opening and closing the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007