Appeal 2007-0636
Application 10/351,016
1984). The Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing that some
objective teaching in the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this initial
burden is met does the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument
shift to the Appellants. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See
also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. Thus, the Examiner
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 Examiner’s conclusion.
ANALYSIS
A. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) REJECTION
As set forth above, representative claim 1 recites a line card that
includes a termination resistor adapted to4 terminate signal lines when the
card is connected to a backplane without a termination resistor. Similarly,
claim 15 recites an impedance network adapted to terminate the signal lines
when connected to the no-termination resistor backplane. As detailed in the
findings of fact section above, we have found that Louwagie discloses a
DSX line card having a circuit including at least a resistor that terminates
contact points when the card is inserted into a chassis that does not have a
4 We note that the statement “adapted to terminate signal lines when the line
card is connected to a backplane without a termination resistor” is not a
structural limitation. Here, it merely implies having the capability to
terminate the signal lines, but not actually terminating said lines. This
language therefore does not limit the claimed resistor to a particular
structure. See MPEP 2111.4.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013