Appeal No. 1999-0260
Application 08/571,064
The Examiner then makes four findings.16 The first is that
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art, at the time of the invention, to have used a current
detector because this would avoid damaging the circuitry.
Second, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the
invention, to have used disjunctive circuitry in the prior art,
because the prior art uses two power lines and thus both would
need to be monitored for over-current.
Third, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to
a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the
invention, to have notified the processor of the over-current
because this would keep the processor informed of problems which
would keep the user informed. Finally, the Examiner finds that
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art, at the time of the invention, to have used the same
protection circuit of the Price invention on operating power
because this would protect the device/circuit card from damage
due to over-current situations.
16 Final rejection, page 3
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007