Appeal 2007-1326
Application 10/237,067
1 communicates with said track interface unit, said communication circuit being
2 configured to receive an input communication signal generated without
3 manipulation of said power signal (FF 12).
4 As the Examiner found, Ireland describes a system with one or more model
5 trains, which receives a power signal via contact with a model train track rail; a
6 track interface unit for bi-directional communication with said one or more model
7 trains; and a communication circuit installed in said one or more model trains that
8 communicates with said track interface unit in a bi-directional manner, the
9 communication circuit communicating to the track interface unit information
10 regarding a current state of said one or more model trains, said communication
11 circuit being configured to (i) receive an input communication signal and
12 (ii) transmit an output communication signal (FF 05).
13 We will point out that although claim 106 recites that the current speed is
14 communicated, the Examiner’s findings are that it is the current state that is
15 communicated by Ireland (FF 04 & 05). The Appellants have not included this
16 difference among their contentions in either their Appeal Brief or Reply Brief, but
17 we will nevertheless further note that the principal function of the controller in
18 both Ireland and Young is to control speed, and therefore, one of ordinary skill
19 would have immediately envisaged speed as the prototypical exemplar of the state
20 communicated by Ireland.
21 Certainly, on its face, Ireland provides several reasons that a person of ordinary
22 skill would have desired bi-directional communication, e.g. to read the locations of
23 rolling stock and to read the state of locomotives (FF 03 & 04). These reasons
24 would have applied with equal force to the model railroad in Young.
18
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013