Appeal No. 1999-0260
Application 08/571,064
In response to Appellants' arguments that there is no
motivation for the use of a disjunctive circuit or its
equivalent, the Examiner asserts26 that when Price is combined
with Appellants' admitted prior art "it can be seen that the
current sensing circuitry would monitor both power inputs and
thus would act like the disjunctive circuitry of the present
invention."
In response to Appellants' argument that Price does not
teach that a different signal line should be disconnected from
the PC card when an over-current condition is met, the Examiner
states,27 "The examiner doesn't feel that the claims ever teach
that the lines that are connected are different than the ones
that are associated with the over-current."
Turning first to Appellants' claims 1, 2, 13, 14 and 18, we
find that each of these claims provides28
"Disjunctive circuit means for logically adding the
outputs of both said first and second detectors"
We agree with Appellants that neither their admitted prior
art nor Price teaches this limitation. We disagree with the
26 Answer, page 4, section 11
27 Answer, page 4, section 11, subsection 1
28
28 Subparagraph 5
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007