Appeal 2007-1362
Application 09/972,107
device or to a second switch such as 82, which allows the signal from 81 be
coupled to a second or a third output device based on how switch 82 is
selected. Although the third output device is accessed through another
switch (83) in Collar, the claim does not preclude an indirect coupling to a
third output device through another switch. Thus, we find no error in the
Examiner’s position finding claims 18, 20, and 22 anticipated by Collar.
2. Rejection of claims 18 and 20 over Vannatta
Based on the determination of the scope of claims 18 and 20 (supra),
we agree with Appellants (Br. 16) that switch 121 does not include all the
features of the claimed first switch. In fact, switch 121 of Vannatta acting as
the “first switch” selects between input signals from antennae 112 and 113
the signal to be coupled to switch 130. See Figure 5. Similarly, switch 130,
as the second switch, receives the signal from either switch 121 or antenna
106 and selectably couples the signal to output devices 178 and 182 (FF 5).
However, switch 121 couples the input signal only to a second switch and
lacks the connection to a first output device. The only other element that is
coupled to switch 121 is the processor 198 which is not an output device (FF
6). Thus, Vannatta cannot anticipate claims 18 and 20 since it does not
disclose all the recited limitations of these claims.
3. Rejection of claims 18 and 20 over Vaisanen
We also agree with Appellants’ argument (Br. 17-18) that Figure 1 of
Vaisanen does not disclose the second switch coupling the signal received in
the first switch to a second and third output device. As shown in Figure 1 of
Vaisanen, the “second” switch SW1 couples the signal from the “first”
switch SW2 to only one element, designated as WLAN (11). Even if
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013