Appeal 2007-1362
Application 09/972,107
WLAN can be considered to be an output device corresponding to the
claimed “second output device,” Vaisanen still lacks a third output device to
which the signal from “second” switch SW1 may be coupled. As such,
Vaisanen does not disclose all the claimed limitations and therefore, cannot
anticipate claims 18 and 20.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we find that the Examiner fails to make a
prima facie case that Collar anticipates independent claim 1 or independent
claim 11, both of which recite a “single rail output switching network.”
Therefore, in view of our analysis above, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of
those claims and their dependent claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12-15, and 17 as
anticipated by Collar cannot be sustained. However, we reach the opposite
conclusion with respect to the rejection of claims 18-26, which do not recite
a “single rail output switching network,” as anticipated by Collar.
Additionally, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 18
and 20 as anticipated by Vannatta or Vaisanen as the references fail to teach
all the limitations of these claims.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-3, 5-15, and 17-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on Collar is reversed with respect to claims 1-
3, 5-15, and 17 and affirmed with respect to claims 18-26. The § 102
rejection of claims 18 and 20 based on Vannatta is reversed, as is the § 102
rejection of those claims based on Vaisanen.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013