Appeal No. 2005-0108
Application No. 10/099,828
alternatives can be costly. (Brief at page 9.) Appellant argues that every embodiment
of appellant’s invention use a specialized network and that therefore, Papadopoulos
teaches away from using their invention with specialized networks. (Brief at page 9.)
Again, we do not find appellant’s argument commensurate in scope with the claimed
invention. We find no limitation in independent claim 1 as to a specialized network since
the claim is directed to a singular process device. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive. Since we find that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness and appellant has not shown error therein nor adequately rebutted the
prima facie case, we will sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 2, 8, and 26-28
and their dependent claims 5 and 10 which appellant has elected to group therewith.
(Brief at page 4.)
With respect to dependent claim 3, appellant argues that while power from the
control loop has been used in the past (Brief at page 9), the examiner’s assertion that
the PLCs of Papadopoulos could be used on the communication loop is to assume
away many of the technical difficulties faced by the designers. (Brief at page 10.) We
disagree with appellant since Burns clearly teaches the use of either loop power or
separate power and the use of the internet to download software. We find that the
teachings of Burns would have suggested the use of the use of the communication loop
for power in combination with the use of the internet. Therefore, this argument is not
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007