Appeal 2007-0636
Application 10/351,016
view that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
combine the teachings of Louwagie and Dewey to yield the invention as
claimed. Therefore, it follows that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 20 and 21 as being unpatentable over the combination
of Louwagie and Dewey.
Next, we note that claims 25 through 28 and 31 require coupling the
signal lines to a chassis when a backplane of the chassis includes a
backplane termination resistor. As detailed in the discussion of independent
claims 22 through 24, 29 and 30 above, we have found that Louwagie does
not teach such limitations. In light of these findings, it is our view that one
of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to combine the
teachings of Louwagie and Dewey to yield the invention as claimed.
Therefore, it follows that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 25 through
28 and 31 as being unpatentable over the combination of Louwagie and
Dewey.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
has failed to establish that Louwagie anticipates claims 1 through 4, 7, 10
through 13, 15 through 19, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Further,
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner has failed to establish that the
combination Louwagie and Dewey renders claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 20 and 21
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, Appellants have shown
that the Examiner has failed to establish that Louwagie anticipates claims 22
through 24, 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Further, Appellants have
shown that the Examiner has failed to establish that the combination
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013