Appeal 2007-1597
Application 10/887,525
claim alone. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
7-9 and 15 as being unpatentable over Holm in view of AAPA for the same
reasons discussed supra with respect to representative claim 1.
Claims 2, 6, and 16-18
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 6, and 16-18
as being unpatentable over Holm in view of AAPA, and further in view of
Kennel. Since Appellants’ arguments with respect to this rejection have
treated these claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we will
consider dependent claim 2 as the representative claim for this rejection. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants essentially restate arguments previously made with respect
to Holm and AAPA that we have fully addressed supra (see Br. 33-36).
Regarding Appellants’ argument that Kennel does not teach a host bridge,
we note that both Holm and AAPA teach a host bridge, and the Examiner
does not rely on Kennel for its teaching of a host bridge (see Br. 35).
Specifically, the Examiner relies upon Kennel for its teaching of an
identifier for an I/O unit, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 (see Answer
6). We agree with the Examiner that Appellants have failed to traverse the
I/O unit identifier teachings of Kennel. We note that the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit has determined that one cannot show nonobviousness
by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097,
231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). This reasoning is applicable here.
Therefore, we find that Holm, as modified by AAPA and Kennel, teaches
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013