Appeal 2007-1326
Application 10/237,067
1 ISSUES
2 All claims
3 The Examiner finds that Young discloses a model train system similar to that
4 recited in the instant claims, including a track interface unit and a communication
5 circuit installed in each train, that each train receives a power signal via contact
6 with track rails, and that the communication circuit is configured to receive an
7 input communication signal and process the command signal independently of the
8 power signal. The Examiner finds that Young's structure does not include bi-
9 directional communication features as required in the instant claims. (Answer 3).
10 To overcome this deficiency, the Examiner finds that Ireland discloses a model
11 train system including a train communication circuit that is configured for bi-
12 directional communications to generate and transmit feedback information by
13 sending state information back from the train. Ireland shows that such train
14 configuration for providing feedback information permits new capabilities - such
15 as wheel synchronized chuffing sounds of a steam locomotive generated by an
16 external sound system which is part of the track interface unit, and a function that
17 is created to detect and alert a placement or removal of a train unit on the layout.
18 (Answer 3-4).
19 The Examiner concludes that, in view of Ireland, it would have been obvious to
20 one skilled in the art to modify the train system of Young to include a bi-
21 directional communication so as to provide feedback state information from the
22 train, as suggested by Ireland, for enhancing new and existing capabilities of the
23 model track system. (Answer 4).
24 Regarding the manner of how the communication signals are being transmitted,
25 the Examiner finds that in its last two lines of column 1 and the first seven lines of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013