Appeal No. 96-3264
Application No. 08/361,163
(Brief, page 9; Answer, page 4).
With respect to the claimed receiver circuitry for
intermittently connecting the power source to the receiver,
the examiner concludes (Answer, pages 4 and 5) that:
Although the claimed circuitry for the
intermittent connecting means is not shown by
Livingstone, it is old and well known in the art of
remote controlled devices as an obvious design
choice to construct the claimed intermittent
connecting means. For example, the use of a second
(or auxiliary) power source to operate the pulse
generator independently of the receiver power source
is an obvious matter of choice in design only as
evidenced by the applicant’s lack of use of a second
(or auxiliary) power source in claim 22.
Further, the relevant OR gate, pulse generator,
and receiver connections as well as the presence of
an R-C circuit are old and well known in the art of
detection of remote controlled signals and further,
the claimed commonly-used elements in the circuit
are not connected/structured in any way that would
display any new or unexpected result from the
connections used in prior detection circuits. For
example, the receiver 100, diode 104, and R-C
circuit as shown in Fig. 6 are typical of the old
and well known AM detector circuit. Further, it is
commonly known that R-C circuitry has been used as a
peak detection circuit (see applicant’s
specification - p. 13, lines 10-12).
There is not a scintilla of evidence in the record to
support any of the examiner’s conclusions. “Allegations
concerning specific ‘knowledge’ of the prior art, which might
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007