Appeal 2007-1362
Application 09/972,107
using two rails for that purpose (Br. 6). The similar language in claim 1 is
being construed in the same way.
As described above, the switching network of Collar uses two sets of
switches in each of the input and the output networks (FF 2 & 3). The sets 7
and 8 are parts of the output switching network and are depicted in Figure 3
as either a single ring or a double ring arrangement (FF 4). The Examiner
reads the recited single rail output switching network on the switches of row
8 (Answer 10). Appellants do not deny that the row 8 switches constitute a
rail of output switches. Instead, Appellants argue that the row 7 switches
form a second rail of output switches and that Collar therefore discloses “a
rather traditional dual rail switching network, not the single rail network
with the connectivity described in claim 1” (Br. 6). The Examiner (Answer
9) contends it is incorrect to characterize Collar as disclosing a “dual rail”
switching network because Collar’s row 7 and row 8 switches are not related
in the same way as are the switches in the two rails in each of the
redundancy rings 740 and 742 in Appellants’ Figure 7, which the
Specification describes as depicting a “typical transponder architecture” at
page 7, line 20. Specifically, based on the Specification’s description of the
function of these redundancy rings the Examiner contends that “’dual rail’ is
two rails with the same elements or duplicated to each other’s, e.g., having
the same dual driver power, dual driver amplifier, etc.” (Answer 9). The
Examiner further contends that because Collar’s system therefore is not a
“dual rail” system, “the ring 8 is a single output switching ring or single
output rail switching network, and the ring 7 of switches is just intermediate
switches, which is not composited [sic] as a redundancy ring or rail” (id.).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013