Appeal No. 1998-2932
Application No. 08/603,680
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness,
the examiner cites Shultz with regard to claim 1, adding Cruickshank with regard to claims
3, 4 and 8-12. With regard to claim 2, the examiner cites Shultz and Tomita. With regard
to claim 5, the examiner cites Sagues, to which Cruickshank and Tomita are added with
regard to claims 6 and 7.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to independent claim 1, the examiner holds the subject matter of this
claim to have been obvious over Shultz. More specifically, the examiner identifies, in
Shultz, a power distribution module (Figure 1), an I/O port (40 with connection to 70) for
connection to an external multiplexed communication path, transceiver circuitry (within 40)
connected to the I/O port and operative to send and receive messages over the
communication path in digital form (column 4, lines 38-48), an input (20 and 55) for
connection to a source of power, a plurality of power output ports (GATE DRIVES),
controllable power switches (30-32) and a controller (40) for sending and receiving
messages (column 3, lines 55 through column 4, line 48).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007