Appeal No. 1998-2932
Application No. 08/603,680
switches selectively route power from the power input connector to a terminal of the power
output connector through an associated power switch . The examiner finds that it would
have been obvious to route the power from the power input connector to a terminal of the
power output connector through an associated power switch, if desired, because an
additional power source would have been saved and this would reduce space
requirements.
The examiner at least makes a rational case for obviousness by identifying
corresponding components in the reference, identifying differences between the reference
and the claimed subject matter and sets forth a reason why the claimed subject matter as a
whole would have been obvious to the artisan.
It also appears clear to us from Sagues’ disclosure (column 1, lines 45-47; column
7, lines 58-62) that the reference provides a suggestion for routing power from an input
source to various components at an output.
The only response by appellants is set forth at pages 10-12 of the principal brief.
This response comprises citations from the examiner’s final rejection and from column 1,
lines 40-52, of Sagues and general allegations that the examiner’s position is in error and
that Sagues teaches away from the claimed invention because Sagues employs voltage
regulators to power internal components rather than using elements 80 to
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007