Appeal No. 1999-0260
Application 08/571,064
As regards claims 10-12, the Examiner finds21 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 Price on operating power because this would protect
the device/circuit card from damage due to over-current
conditions.
As regards claims 13-16, the Examiner admits22 that
Appellants' admitted prior art does not disclose means for
turning the driver off, or storing the result of the detection
means. The Examiner asserts that Price inherently discloses
turning off the driver23 and storing the results24 since the
connection is not established until the current condition is
removed. The Examiner then finds25 that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of
the invention, to have turned the driver off because this would
conserve power since no data would be transmitted when an over-
current occurs.
21 Final, page 5, section h
22 Final, page 6, section i
23 Column 5, lines 37-56
24 Column 5, lines 54-56
25 Final, page 7, section i
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007