Appeal 2007-1248
Application 10/324,441
Claims 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Romao in view of Kato.
Claims 4 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Romao in view of Potega.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed October 10, 2006) and to
Appellants' Brief (filed June 13, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed October 30,
2006) for the respective arguments.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7 through 17, 19, 21 through 25, 28, 29, and 31
and also the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 4, 13, 18, and 30.
OPINION
Each of independent claims 1 and 17 recites a control circuit that
senses a peripheral type based on the type of peripheral that is connected to
the connector and that couples a shared contact to a power circuit or a data
circuit based on the type of peripheral sensed. Independent claim 25 recites
the steps of sensing a peripheral type based on the type of peripheral that is
connected to the jack and selectively coupling a shared contact to a power
circuit or a data circuit based on the type of peripheral sensed. Thus, all of
the independent claims require sensing the type of peripheral that is plugged
into the jack and selectively connecting a shared contact to either a power
circuit or a data circuit based on the type of peripheral that is sensed.
The Examiner asserts (Answer 4 and 12-13) that connector pins 41-44
sense or detect the type of peripheral plugged into the jack and couple shared
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013