Appeal 2007-1326
Application 10/237,067
1 skill.” Id. “Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of
2 endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason
3 for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 1732, 82 USPQ2d at
4 1397.
5
6 ANALYSIS
7 Claims 106, 109, 114, 135-140, 194-198, 200, and 204-205 rejected under 35
8 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Young and Ireland.
9
10 Claims 106, 109, 114, 135-140, and 194-197
11 We note that the Appellants argue claims 106, 109, 114, 135-140, and 194-197
12 as a group. Accordingly, we select claim 106 as representative of the group.
13 Claim 106 is directed toward a bi-directional communication system for model
14 trains in which the communication signal is generated without manipulating the
15 power signal. Young essentially describes this, except that Young transmits in
16 only one direction (FF 06 - 11). On the other hand, Ireland describes bi-directional
17 communication system for model trains in which the communication signal is
18 generated by manipulating the power signal. Thus the question we are presented
19 with is whether one of ordinary skill would have modified Young to have bi-
20 directional communication based on the teachings of Ireland.
21 As the Examiner found, Young describes a system with one or more model
22 trains, which receives a power signal via contact with a model train track rail; a
23 track interface unit for directional communication with said one or more model
24 trains; and a communication circuit installed in said one or more model trains that
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013