Appeal No. 1999-0260
Application 08/571,064
At pages 4-5 of the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that one
of ordinary skill in the art would in fact be precluded from
replacing the fusible elements 31 and 32 with other mechanisms,
and therefore the combination of teachings as alleged by the
Examiner is not proper. This argument is based upon the premise
that figure 11 describes the PCMCIA Standard, and as such
describes what must be done in order to comply with the Standard.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not have a choice, and as a
matter of necessity would be required to include the fusible
elements shown in figure 11. As stated by Appellants "the
teachings of the standard are essentially 'thou shalt not replace
what we have shown with other things or, otherwise, thou shalt be
in breach of this standard'."
The Examiner asserts15 that Appellants' figure 11 discloses
a power enabling mechanism with first and second power lines and
dual switches. The Examiner admits that Appellants do not
disclose as prior art a first and second detector, a disjunctive
circuit, and control of the switches in response to the
disjunctive circuit. The Examiner then points to Price's
disclosing a current detector which is used to control a switch
and notify the computer.
15 Final rejection, pages 2-3
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007