Appeal No. 1999-0260
Application 08/571,064
while claims 15-17 recite "means for turning off said driver in
response to output from said holding means." Appellants assert
that "what applicants are claiming is the turning off of a driver
which supplies a signal line to the PC Card," and not turning off
either of the power lines which supply the PC card. Appellants
then argue12 that the problem solved by turning off the driver is
not shown in prior art figure 11 or Price, and one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have been led to appreciate any desire
for the disconnection of the driver which transmits signals to
the PC card in response to the detection of an over-current
condition in separate power lines.
In regard to claims 10-12, Appellants first reiterate13 the
arguments presented for claims 6-9 and 15-17. Appellants then
note that each of these claims recites "halting transmission of a
signal to said input/output device in response to said power
supply abnormality that is detected." Appellants assert14 that
neither the prior art circuit of figure 11 nor Price teaches that
as a result of an over-current condition any signal transmission
on another line should be halted.
12 Brief, page 13
13 Brief, pages 14-15
14 Brief, page 15
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007