Appeal 2007-1326
Application 10/237,067
1 As is immediately perceived upon reading claim 198, the claim is broader than
2 argued by the Appellants. The claim neither further characterizes the input
3 communication signal, such that Young’s RF signal would not read on it, nor does
4 the claim further characterize the phrase “integrally formed,” such that Young’s
5 integral formation of the signals where the signals enter the track do not read on it.
6 First, the phrase “integrally formed” is ambiguous and is susceptible to multiple
7 interpretations. It might mean either having the attribute of being made integral by
8 their original formation, or it might mean continuing to be integral at the time they
9 are received. There is clearly no requirement in the claim that the signals be
10 integral when received at the train, as compared with when received at the track.
11 As to whether the claim meets the broader construction between these two
12 interpretations, since both signals are propagated along the same wire from
13 Young’s controller, there can be little dispute that the signals are made integral at
14 the time of their formation.
15 Thus, the Examiner has shown that the combination of Young and Ireland
16 describes the limitations of claim 198, and that one of ordinary skill would have
17 combined Young and Ireland to form the claimed subject matter.
18
19 Claims 107, 116-118, 120, 122, 127, 149-152, 154, 159, 161-163, 165, 167, 172,
20 180-185, 199, and 201-203 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
21 Young, Ireland, and Olmsted.
22 The Appellants argue these claims for the same reasons as those rejected over
23 Young and Ireland (Br. 21-22), and accordingly, these claims fall with the claims
24 rejected over Young and Ireland.
25
22
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013