Appeal No. 2003-1473
Application No. 09/336,649
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir.
1984). However, “the Board must not only assure that the
requisite findings are made, based on evidence of record, but
must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed
to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
We find ourselves in agreement with Appellant that the
combination of the references does not teach or suggest the
claimed subject matter since the switch taught in IBM TDB is not
the same as the recited repeater. IBM TDB, in fact, configures
three devices on a bus communicating with each initiator wherein
a switch merely connects the three devices (3,5,7) on one bus to
another bus which has its own three devices (2,4,6) in case one
of the initiators fails (page 343). Thus, the degraded bus mode
will have a total of six devices (2-7), each having its own
identification, that are connected to one initiator (id.).
Contrary to the Examiner’s assertion (answer, page 7), giving the
ordinary meaning of the term “repeater” to the claimed term is
not the same as reading limitations from the specification into
the claims. A repeater, as disclosed by Appellant
(specification, page 3), reproduces the signal on the next
section of a cable and is different from a switch which merely
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007