Appeal 2007-1248
Application 10/324,441
or data circuit based on the sensed AC/DC signal." The Examiner further
asserts (Answer 19) that "[i]t is obvious that [Romao's] control circuit senses
an [sic] DC signal of the power peripheral … which directs the electrical
current towards the switch 35 and battery to allow for the charging control
switch to close and if the data peripheral is connected the control circuit
senses the AC signal from the battery and prevents the switch from closing."
Appellants contend (Br. 16) that Romao has no need to distinguish between
the types of signals because switch 35 opens or closes based on the state of
the battery. The issue is whether it would have been obvious to modify
Romao to sense the type of signal from connector contacts.
As stated supra, we find no teaching in Romao of any sensing of the
type of peripheral. Romao's contact pins do not sense or detect anything.
Romao accomplishes the connection to the appropriate circuit without
sensing the type of peripheral and therefore has no need for such sensing.
Accordingly, it is unclear to us, and the Examiner has not explained, why the
skilled artisan would have added additional circuitry to Romao to do what
Romao's device already does. Thus, we will not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 13 and 30.
Claim 2 limits the type of data circuit to an audio or a video circuit,
and claims 4 and 18 limit the type of connector to a barrel jack. The
Examiner relies upon Kato and Potega, respectively, for the additional
limitations. However, neither Kato nor Potega cures the deficiencies of
Romao. Therefore, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejections of claims
2, 4, and 18.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013