Appeal No. 1998-2932
Application No. 08/603,680
on by the examiner for other claim limitations (Cruickshank for programmable control and
distribution modules and Tomita for use of control modules within a shared communication
medium in which contention protection is offered), provides for the deficiency of claim 1.
Independent claims 8 and 9 include recitations of a “network.” Claim 8 calls for a
“vehicular communication network” while claim 9 calls for a “first, existing network” and a
“plurality of power-control modules interfaced to the first network...”
Neither Shultz nor Cruickshank suggests a “network” of any kind. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the rejection of independent claims 8 and 9, or of claims 10-12, dependent
on claim 9, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Independent claim 6 is a very narrow claim directed to a power distribution module
having, inter alia, an enclosure, bidirectional communication path, digital communication
circuitry for sending and receiving messages, contention detection circuitry for outputting a
fault signal if a message is received while one is being sent, and protection circuitry.
The examiner relies on the combination of Sagues, Cruickshank and Tomita in
rejecting claim 6 and its dependent claim 7. However, we do not find the required
bidirectional communication and digital communication circuitry disclosed or suggested
in any of the applied references. The examiner contends that Sagues has a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007