Appeal No. 1999-0474
Application No. 08/674,452
wherein said control-specification information is provided on said
removable storage;
whereby said removable storage is coupled with a load control device
which controls said plurality of loads on the basis of said control-specification
information.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Oho et al. (Oho) 4,855,896 Aug. 8, 1989
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Oho in view of “conventional knowledge in the art.”
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 10) and the Examiner's Answer
(Paper No. 17) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No.
16) and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 18) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims
which stand rejected.
OPINION
In response to the rejection of the instant claims (set forth at pages 3 through 6
of the Answer), appellants contend that language in claim 1 distinguishes the invention.
In particular, appellants argue that the language requiring access of a look-up table and
identifying candidates from the plurality of load terminals which may be controlled by a
selected one of the control switches (which appellants refer to as the “candidate
requirement”) is not taught or suggested by the prior art. “Oho describes an in-place
load control system, not a design management system.” (Brief at 5.)
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007