Appeal 2007-1326
Application 10/237,067
1 In particular, the Appellants make no separate contentions regarding these
2 claims, and thus this issue turns on the conclusion regarding the rejection
3 over Young and Ireland.
4
5 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
6 The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF), supported by substantial
7 evidence, are pertinent to the above issues.
8 Ireland
9 01. Ireland is directed toward “the field of control systems for scale model
10 railroad layouts, and specifically to improvements in elements of block
11 occupancy and location detection methods that are employed on model
12 railroads.” (Ireland, col. 1, ll. 4-7).
13 02. Ireland describes the “capability of addressing or interrogating a
14 particular device on the layout, detecting a predetermined coded
15 response and then being able to determine its location is termed
16 transponding. As for track occupancy detection, it is most common to
17 use current conducted via the tracks to perform transponder detection.”
18 (Ireland, col. 2, ll. 30-35). “The acknowledgement pulses generated by a
19 particular transponder device are defined to occur directly after, and to
20 be time synchronized to, commands that a transponder recognizes arc
21 [sic] addressed to its attention. These pulse responses are then an
22 ‘identification acknowledgement’ that is prompted by the system. This
23 directly links the detection of valid current pulses to the address of the
24 command that has just been sent and thus allows the address of the
25 responding transponder to be inferred.” (Ireland, col. 2, ll. 42-50).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013