Appeal No. 2005-2418
Application 09/932,639
turning devices in an automobile on or off, which does not
contest the examiner’s reasoning of unpatentability. It appears
to us that the artisan would clearly interpret Endo’s circuit to
operate either on analog or digital data or both.
Lastly, we also reverse the rejection of dependent
claims 57 and 58 for the same reasons we reverse the rejection of
independent claims 39 and 40 earlier.
Next, we turn to the stated rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of claim 19 as being obvious over Pitt in view of Davis.
Since we sustain the rejection of claim 19 in light of the
examiner’s initial statement of the rejection at pages 4 and 5 of
the Answer, in addition to the remarks at pages 14 and 15 of the
Answer responding to appellant’s arguments in the Brief, we add
the following for emphasis. Claim 18 recites the feature at the
end of the claim of a power consuming device being a data storage
device where data is transmitted through the fiber optic device
where it is stored in the data storage device.
The background of the invention of Pitt’s patent at
column 1 indicates that it was known in the art that a control-
lable device included bimetallic strips or memory metal strips
which are otherwise disclosed as a part of the ability to detect
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007