Appeal No. 2003-0189
Application No. 09/627,892
not find motivation to combine Bell and Rosen et al. such that only one node in
the network is connected to a power source and the other nodes receive power
over the telephone lines. Thus, we find that if a person of ordinary skill in the art
were to apply the teachings of Rosen et al. to a computer network, such as that
taught by Bell, the combination would not yield the claimed device but rather a
network where each computer in the network has an associated CIU that is
connected to a power source and transmits RF power.
Finally we turn to the rejection of claims 11, 14-15 under 35 U.S.C § 103
as being as being unpatentable over Bell in view of Rosen et al. and Hutchison
et al. These claims are ultimately dependent upon claim 103 and as such
include the limitation of a “only one node connected to a power supply, said
other nodes receiving power over said telephone wires.” On page 4 of the
answer, the examiner, states that Hutcheson et al. is relied upon to teach the
limitations of “networking among the nodes” The examiner has not shown that
Hutchison et al. teaches the limitation of only one node connected to a power
supply. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 11 and 14-15
under 35 U.S.C § 103, as it contains the same deficiencies as noted in the
rejection of claims 10 under 35 U.S.C § 103.
3 Claim 14 is dependent upon canceled claim 13, however since claim 10 is the only
independent claim pending in the application is assumed that claim 14 is meant to be
ultimately dependent upon claim 10.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007