Appeal No. 1999-0260
Application 08/571,064
Examiner's finding that it would have been obvious 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.
We find that monitoring two lines does not require or even
suggest the need for disjunctive circuits. The application of
Price's teaching to monitor a PC modem card line for excessive
current and triggering a circuit breaking relay upon detection of
an over-current to the two power lines of Appellants' figure 11
would suggest separate sensor and relay operation for each power
line.
Thus, the Examiner has not established why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention, which explicitly requires a disjunctive circuit, by
the express teachings or suggestions found in the prior art, or
by implications contained in such teachings or suggestions.
In addition, we disagree with the Examiner's assertion that
when Price is combined with Appellants' admitted prior art, the
current sensing circuitry would monitor both power inputs and
thus would act like the disjunctive circuitry of the present
invention. Monitoring both power inputs does not make a
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007