Appeal No. 2005-2753
Application No. 09/730,238
noise, which is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art of fiber optical communication”
(Answer-page 24). Appellant has indicated no specific error in the examiner’s reasoning.
With regard to the Group XIII claims 37 and 48, the examiner has established a prima
facie case of obviousness by applying Herwig and Flannery as before, and adding Urade for
a USB hub 11 (Figure 4), wherein a hub repeater 12 is connected to an upstream port (Root
Port 13). The examiner explained that it would have been obvious to have included a hub
repeater as in Urade, in the hub bus of Herwig, as modified by Flannery, “so as to manage
port connectivity between a selected downstream functional device and a host computer
connected to said upstream port (i.e., root port; See Urade, col. 3, lines 60-62)” (Answer-
page 13).
The examiner then explained that the combination of Herwig, Flannery, and Urade
did not expressly teach that the hub controller and hub repeater comprised memory stored
instructions executable by a processor or logic gates or a programmable logic device
(Answer-pages 24-25). The examiner turned to Silverman (Abstract and Figure 4) for a
teaching of a configurable universal serial bus (USB), and indicated, at page 25 of the
answer, where, in Silverman, the memory stored instructions, logic gates, and programmable
logic device are found.
The examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to have included the
configuration components of Silverman in the hub controller and hub repeater of Herwig, as
modified by Flannery and Urade, “for the advantage of providing an improved technique for
effecting digital communications between said downstream devices (i.e., digital devices) and
-16-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007