Appeal 2007-0636
Application 10/351,016
Particularly, Appellants contend that Louwagie does not fairly teach or
suggest a termination resistor or impedance network adapted to terminate
signal lines when the line card is connected to a backplane without a
termination resistor, as recited in independent claims 1 and 15. (Br. 7, 10
and 11; Reply Br. 1). Further, Appellants contend that Louwagie does not
fairly teach or suggest a termination resistor adapted to terminate signal lines
by a jumper when coupled across the line card connector contacts when the
line card is connected to a backplane that has a built in termination resistor,
as recited in representative claim 7. (Br. 9) Additionally, Appellants
contend that Louwagie does not fairly teach or suggest coupling the signal
lines to a chassis when a backplane of the chassis includes a backplane
termination resistor, as recited in representative claims 22 and 29. (Br. 10
and 11). For these same reasons, Appellants further contend that Louwagie
and Dewey do not render dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 20, 21, 25 through
28 and 31 unpatentable. (Br. 12).
The Examiner, in contrast, contends that Louwagie teaches the cited
limitations of representative claims 1, 7 and 22 as a termination resistor used
in a jack spring contact tip of a DSX card to couple the card with backplane
of a chassis. (Answer 3 and 8). The Examiner therefore concludes that
Louwagie anticipates representative claims 1 through 4, 7, 10 through 13, 15
through 19, 22 through 24, 29, 30 and 32. Further, the Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to combine Louwagie and Dewey to yield
the invention as recited in claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 20, 21, 25 through 28 and 31.
(Answer 7).
We affirm-in-part.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013