Appeal 2007-0636
Application 10/351,016
termination resistor. (findings of fact 7 and 8). In light of these findings, it is
our view that Louwagie teaches the limitation of using a termination resistor
when a card is inserted into a chassis with no termination resistor, as recited
in claim 1. We note that an impedance network, broadly construed, can be
interpreted as being a resistor. Therefore, we find for the same reasons that
Louwagie teaches the limitations of claim 15. It follows that the Examiner
did not err in rejecting claims 1, 15 as being anticipated by Louwagie.
Appellants did not provide separate arguments with respect to the rejection
of dependent claims 2 through 4 and 16 through 19 as being anticipated by
Louwagie. Therefore, they fall together with claims 1 and 15 respectively.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Now, we turn to the rejection of claims 7, 10 through 13 and 32. As
set forth above, representative claim 7 recites 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. Similarly, independent claim 32 recites a
termination resistor adapted to not terminate signal lines when the associated
backplane has a termination resistor.5 Pursuant to our discussion above, the
limitation following the expression “adapted to” does not limit these claims
to any particular structure. Thus, representative claim 7 merely requires a
line card termination resistor being able to terminate DSX lines by a jumper
cable when the backplane is without a termination resistor, and the card
being able not to terminate the DSX lines when the backplane has a
termination resistor. As detailed in the findings of fact section above, we
5 See supra note 4.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013