Appeal 2007-1326
Application 10/237,067
1 person how to solve many of the issues and the high level of technological design
2 competence such a person would necessarily exhibit would render these issues
3 resolvable by such a person of ordinary skill. Thus we do not find this argument
4 persuasive.
5 As to the Appellants’ list of unexpected results, we have considered these, but
6 we note that the Appellants have made no showing that the results arise from
7 causes commensurate in scope with the very broad scope of claim 106. Thus we
8 do not find this argument persuasive.
9 Thus, the Examiner has shown that the combination of Young and Ireland
10 describe the limitations of claim 106, and that one of ordinary skill would have
11 combined Young and Ireland to form the claimed subject matter.
12
13 Claims 198, 200, and 204-205
14 We note that the Appellants argue claims 198, 200, and 204-205 as a group.
15 Accordingly, we select claim 198 as representative of the group.
16 Claim 198 is as follows:
17 198. The model train system of claim 106, wherein the received input
18 communication signal and power signal are integrally formed.
19
20 The Appellants contend that the input communication signal of Young is not an
21 electrical current transmitted through the same rail as the power signal, but rather,
22 is an RF (radio frequency) signal between the track and earth ground, which
23 generates an electromagnetic field which propagates along the track. Moreover,
24 those signals are not disclosed as being received as integrally formed but are
25 picked-up separately similar to that disclosed by Young. (Br. 20-21).
21
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013