Ex Parte Wolf et al - Page 6

            Appeal 2007-1326                                                                                  
            Application 10/237,067                                                                            

        1       The Appellants contend that the Examiner’s proposed modification is wholly                    
        2   unsupported by the cited prior art, and utterly lacks the requisite motivation and                
        3   enablement from the prior art to make a proper modification.  The Appellants point                
        4   out that the problems related to noise referenced by Young are specifically directed              
        5   to a control signal received by the train.  These problems are associated with                    
        6   picking-up an encoded control signal at a moving train through sliding contacts,                  
        7   whereby the encoded control signal can be lost, altered, etc., in the noisy                       
        8   environment.  The Appellants compare this to Ireland, in which the communication                  
        9   from the train is based on a simple process by which the train "shorts" the track to              
       10   create current pulses which can be easily detected by a fixed sensor, immune from                 
       11   the same aforementioned problems associated with any noise or movement at the                     
       12   pick-up point.  (Appeal Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 4-7).                                                 
       13       The Appellants conclude that although Young may suggest RF signaling to the                   
       14   train for "eliminating noise and connection problems," such a motivation is not                   
       15   relevant when transmitting signals from the train in the manner disclosed by                      
       16   Ireland. Young's motivation is disclosed as being related only to signals going to                
       17   the train, without any evidence on the record that such noise/connection problems                 
       18   would likewise exist for signals transmitted from a train in the manner disclosed by              
       19   Ireland.  (Appeal Br. 10).                                                                        
       20       The Appellants further contend that converting the electromagnetic scheme of                  
       21   Young to function bi-directionally would face design problems that need to be                     
       22   overcome for converting a receive only device to a transceiver, entailing space                   
       23   considerations, power considerations, and receiver protection problems.  Further,                 
       24   the code to transmit is substantially different than code for receiving and that                  
       25   Ireland has relatively simple responses or acknowledgements, whereas it is a big                  

                                                      6                                                       


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013