Appeal 2007-1326
Application 10/237,067
1 The Appellants contend that the input communication signal of Young is not an
2 electrical current transmitted through the same rail as the power signal, but rather,
3 is an RF signal between the track and earth ground, which generates an
4 electromagnetic field which propagates along the track. Moreover, those signals
5 are not disclosed as being received as integrally formed but are picked-up
6 separately similar to that disclosed by Young. (Appeal Br. 20-21).
7 Thus, the issues pertinent to this appeal are
8 • Whether the rejection of claims 106, 109, 114, 135-140, 194-198, 200, and
9 204-205 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Young and Ireland is
10 proper. In particular, this issue turns on whether communication with a
11 track interface unit in a bi-directional manner, regarding a current speed of
12 said one or more model trains, in a configuration to receive an input
13 communication signal and transmit an output communication signal
14 generated without manipulation of the power signal is shown by or would
15 otherwise be an obvious variation of the combined teachings of Young and
16 Ireland. With respect to some dependent claims, a subordinate issue is
17 whether integral formation of the signals is shown or is otherwise obvious.
18 • Whether the rejection of claims 107, 116-118, 120, 122, 127, 149-152, 154,
19 159, 161-163, 165, 167, 172, 180-185, 199, and 201-203 under 35 U.S.C.
20 § 103(a) as obvious over Young, Ireland, and Olmsted is proper. In
21 particular, the Appellants make no separate contentions regarding these
22 claims, and thus this issue turns on the conclusion regarding the rejection
23 over Young and Ireland.
24 • Whether the rejection of claims 115, 128, 160, and 173 under 35 U.S.C.
25 § 103(a) as obvious over Young, Ireland, Olmsted, and Swensen is proper.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013