Appeal 2007-0636
Application 10/351,016
have found that Louwagie discloses a jumper, as well as a resistor for
terminating the signal lines (findings of fact 8 and 9). In light of these
findings, it is our view that Louwagie teaches the limitation of a jumper or a
termination resistor having the capability to terminate the signal lines, as
recited in claims 7 and 32. It follows that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 7 and 32 as being anticipated by Louwagie. Appellants did
not provide separate arguments with respect to the rejection of dependent
claims 10 through 13 as being anticipated by Louwagie. Therefore, they fall
together with claim 7. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Now, we turn to the rejection of claims 22 through 24, 29 and 30. As
set forth above, representative claim 22 requires coupling the signal lines to
a chassis when a backplane of the chassis includes a backplane termination
resistor. Similarly, independent claim 29 requires terminating DSX-1
signals with the backplane termination resistor included in a backplane. We
find that Louwagie does not teach a backplane with a termination resistor. It
is therefore our view that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 22 through
24, 29 and 30 as being anticipated by Louwagie.
B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
Now, we turn to the rejection of claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 20, 21, 25
through 28 and 31 as being unpatentable Louwagie in combination with
Dewey. We note that dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 20 and 21 require a
resistor or a jumper having the ability to couple signal lines. As detailed in
the discussion of independent claims 1, 7, 15 and 32 above, we have found
that Louwagie teaches such limitations. In light of these findings, it is our
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013