Appeal No. 2006-2452
Application No. 09/797,872
Step ST 19) and sends back to the controller device a formulated “ACCEPTED”
response (Step ST 20) which must then be processed by the controlled device
(Step ST 7) before the command transaction is terminated at Step ST 4.
We have also reviewed the Hoekstra, Kagawa, and Ishiwatari references
added to Kawamura by the Examiner to address, respectively, the claimed
response time periods, transmission error recognition, and power on/off
command transmission features. We find nothing, however, in any of these
references, taken individually or collectively, which would overcome the innate
deficiencies of Kawamura discussed supra.
In view of the above discussion, since we are of the opinion that the
proposed combination of the Kawamura, Hoekstra, Kagawa, and Ishiwatari
references set forth by the Examiner does not support the obviousness rejection,
we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 4, and 7, nor of claims 2,
3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 dependent thereon.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007