Appeal No. 95-4135
Application 07/772,998
(58) for control of loads," and bidirectional communication via
the transceiver, but we also agree with the appellants' argument
(Brief, page 12) that "[t]here is no teaching whatsoever in
Miller of a circuit breaker having a decoding means for decoding
a designated coded signal and returning a response signal, as
claimed in the present application."
The examiner's contentions (Answer, pages 8 and 9) to
the contrary notwithstanding, there is no evidence in Hedman that
lines 46 and 46' carry signals to and from the circuit breakers.
We agree with appellants' argument (Brief, page 13) that "lines
46 and 46' represent power lines and having [sic, have] nothing
to do with data communication (column 4, lines 52-59 of Hedman)."
Wilson discloses optical coupling in circuit breakers
(columns 19 and 20), but not in the manner set forth in the
claims on appeal.
In summary, we agree with the appellants' argument
(Brief, page 16 and 17) that the applied references neither teach
nor would they have suggested to the skilled artisan the claimed
invention, that the examiner has resorted to hindsight to
reconstruct the claimed invention, and that the obviousness
rejections should be reversed.
DECISION
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007