Appeal No. 2006-1148
Application No. 10/382,492
OPINION
With regard to claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, and 11, the examiner’s position is that
Schwarzbach discloses the claimed subject matter but for the lighting means being positioned
at an airfield. The examiner relies on Tann to show an airfield lighting installation and
concludes that it would have been obvious to use the lighting control system of Schwarzbach
in an airfield environment as taught by Tann “in order that an airfield could have had a
lighting control and status monitoring system operating over a power line, thus saving cost
by not having to include separate lighting and communication lines” (answer-page 4).
Appellants’ view is that Schwarzbach teaches a system for controlling lamps and
appliances over the power lines of a house or other residential building, detecting whether a
lamp’s own power switch is off or on (a lamp whose power switch is turned off cannot be
controlled from the central control computer), while Tann teaches an airport lighting control
system having two-way communication, but over separately provided control lines.
Appellants conclude that the skilled artisan would not have combined these
references since Schwarzbach is concerned with a problem, viz., a situation in which a lamp
is switched off locally and cannot be controlled remotely, which would not have arisen in
Tann. Further, argue appellants, the difference in power lines between Schwarzbach and
Tann would have suggested that these references are not combinable. Appellants also argue
that Tann’s use of low power for the communication lines would have taught away from
communicating over power lines, as in Schwarzbach. Therefore, conclude appellants, since
the skilled artisan
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007