Appeal No. 2005-0108
Application No. 10/099,828
Appellant argues that the nature of devices of the two references are drastically
different. (See brief at page 5.) Appellant argues that the PLCs of Papadopoulos are
miniature in size and not subject to harsh environments. Nor are they required to
operate on constrained power budgets, as compared to the field devices of Burns. (See
brief at page 5.) While appellant’s arguments appear to distinguish between PLCs and
field devices in these specific features, we do not find that these arguments are
commensurate with the general scope of appellant’s broad claim language. Specifically,
we find no limitation in independent claim 1 with respect to the size of the devices, or a
specific harsh environment. Nor do we find a limitation independent claim 1 as to the
power budgets or manner in which the device is powered. Therefore, we do not find
these arguments to be persuasive.
Moreover, we note that Burns specifically discloses at column 8, lines 15-20, that
“bus 34 supports or allows two-way, purely digital communication and may also provide
a power signal to any or all of the devices connected thereto, such as the field devices
16-32. Alternatively, any or all of the devices 12-32 may have their own power supplies
or may be connected to external power supplies via separate wires (not shown).” We
find this teaching of Burns to suggest that bus 34 may provide “a power signal to any or
all of the devices connected thereto” which includes both the field devices and the
PLC’s or that all of the devices may have sources of power separate from the bus as an
alternative within the level of skill in the art.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007