Appeal 2007-1326
Application 10/237,067
1 column 2, Young clearly indicates a preference toward the use of electromagnetic
2 field to transmit communication signals because it would eliminate noise and
3 connection problems that are associated with the use of electrical contacts for
4 receiving communication signals. Accordingly, upon modifying Young's structure
5 to include the informational feedback capability as the Examiner concluded, supra,
6 it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the same method of
7 transmitting communication signals as preferred by Young, for transmitting the
8 feedback information so as to achieve the expected advantages thereof, such as
9 eliminating noise and connection problems. (Answer 4).
10 The Examiner further finds that it would not have been obvious to one skilled
11 in the art to not combine Young and Ireland in this manner, i.e. it would not have
12 been obvious to use the method of communication through electrical contacts with
13 the tracks to transmit the feedback information, because Young teaches against
14 such method, and further, such use of electrical contacts to transmit
15 communication signals in Young would destroy the teaching of Young. (Answer
16 4-5).
17 The Appellants contend that none of the cited prior art, alone or in
18 combination, disclose or suggest the combination of a model train which can
19 communicate bi-directionally without manipulation of the power signal. They
20 contend that Ireland discloses only model railroad detection equipment which
21 expressly relies on manipulation of the power signal to create the output signal
22 from the train. Accordingly, they conclude that the prior art combination suggests
23 at best a system in which the train would transmit an output signal by manipulating
24 the power signal as expressly taught by Ireland. (Appeal Br. 8-9).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013