Ex Parte Wolf et al - Page 7

            Appeal 2007-1326                                                                                  
            Application 10/237,067                                                                            

        1   step in complexity and capability to go from yes vs. no or one-word answers                       
        2   (Ireland) to being able to answer in complete sentences (present invention).                      
        3   (Appeal Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 7-9).                                                                
        4       The Appellants go on to argue that Young can not simply provide an output                     
        5   signal, similar to the received signal, on a return path from the engine because the              
        6   Young engine is not capable of signal transmission using the difference between                   
        7   earth ground and track potential as used for the received signal.  That is, the engine            
        8   does not have access to the earth ground because it is floating on the track.                     
        9   Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the engine of Young could somehow be                        
       10   connected to earth ground, the Appellants contend that output signaling back to the               
       11   base unit would be subject to a myriad of obstacles such as interference with the                 
       12   existing electromagnetic field used for the incoming signals to the trains and the                
       13   inherent limitations of RF signaling in relation to a moving engine.  (Appeal Br.                 
       14   13-14; Reply Br. 9-12).                                                                           
       15       Thus, the Appellants conclude that Young does not enable how one would                        
       16   effect such a bi-directional scheme using electromagnetic signaling, and that                     
       17   neither Young nor Ireland suggest any possible means by which to overcome such                    
       18   obstacles and utilize the same electromagnetic incoming signal as an outgoing                     
       19   signal from the engine.  (Appeal Br. 14).                                                         
       20       The Appellants then present a list of unexpected results, purporting to evidence              
       21   non-obviousness, e.g., an engine can transmit a packet at any time and not just                   
       22   when the power signal has been interrupted.  This means an engine can talk                        
       23   directly to another engine (or other device).  A corollary to this is that two devices            
       24   in the present invention can perform bi-directional communications in the absence                 
       25   of a traditional power signal.  Further, any object in the present invention equipped             

                                                      7                                                       


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

Last modified: September 9, 2013