Appeal 2007-1597
Application 10/887,525
See also: “PCI IOAs 120-121 are connected to PCI local bus 140
through I/O fabric 180, which comprises switches and bridges” [emphasis
added] (Specification 9, ¶ 2).
Thus, we find a broad but reasonable interpretation of the claim term
“connected” (that is fully consistent with the Specification) reads on AAPA
which clearly shows a plurality of input/output units (IOAs 302 and 304)
that are connected to a host bridge (PHB 306) through Bridge Chip 308.
Thus, we conclude that a proper construction of the claim term “connected”
broadly reads on indirect connections. cf. Searfoss v. Pioneer Consol.
Corp., 374 F.3d 1142, 1149-50, 71 USPQ2d 1517, 1521-22 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(the construction of the claim term “connect” (i.e., a direct connection vs.
indirect connection) is determined by interpreting the claim language in light
of the Specification).
Therefore, for at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude the
Examiner has met the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
anticipation. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 10 as being anticipated by AAPA.
Dependent claim 14
We further note that Appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent claim 14. In
the absence of a separate argument with respect to the dependent claims,
those claims stand or fall with the representative independent claim. See In
re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See
also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Therefore, we will sustain the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013