Appeal 2007-1464
Application 10/276,285
wherein the distributed safety-related system includes at least one
additional microcomputer system that is connected to the first
microcomputer system for data transfer, and wherein at least one of steps (b)
through (d) is executed by the at least one additional microcomputer system.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Zittlau US 6,157,887 Dec. 5, 2000
Zydek US 6,502,019 B1 Dec. 31, 2002
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 9-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Zittlau.
2. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Zittlau and Zydek.1
ISSUE
Appellants contend that (1) Zittlau fails to disclose “any enable-signal that
has a selected value, as provided for in the context of the claim and as defined by
the specification” (Appeal Br. 10), (2) Zittlau fails to disclose the “possibility of
direct signaling”, i.e., a signal line directly connected between the wheel modules
(Appeal Br. 11), and (3) “[t]he arithmetic units in the ‘Zittlau’ reference do not
monitor each other” (Appeal Br. 12). The Examiner found that (1) the “wheel
1 The Zydek reference was added in the Examiner’s answer in order to support the
Official Notice originally taken in the Final Office Action.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013