Appeal No. 2005-0108
Application No. 10/099,828
Appellant argues that the examiner mischaracterizes the devices of Burns and
and Papadopoulos as analogous because these devices are “typically field hardened
robust devices that are mounted in harsh environments and are typically required to
operate on severally [sic, severely] constrained power budgets.” [Emphasis added.]
Again, we find that appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the language of
independent claim 1 and appellant has only asserted a general argument without
support in the teachings of the prior art.
Appellant argues that the PLC’s of Papadopoulos are “generally a very different
sort of device that is characterized by a high degree of expandability and configurability
. . . typically used . . . and very often operate on, for example 110 Volts AC.” (Brief at
page 8.) Again, we find that appellant is arguing generalities rather than the specific
teachings and suggestions of the applied prior art. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive. Burns teaches at column 9, lines 8-10, that the “hosts 12 and 15, the PLC
13, and the controllers 14 may be any type of fieldbus device but, typically, will be link
master devices.” Therefore, we find that Burns teaches that there is no specific
combination of types of devices required or combinable in the system.
Appellant argues that even if the teachings of the two references are analogous,
the examiner has not supplied a sufficient suggestion to support the prima facie case of
obviousness. (Brief at pages 8-9.) We disagree with appellant as discussed above.
Appellant further argues that Papadopoulos teaches that using proprietary fieldbus
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007