Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
remote control signal by identifying said idling information"
or "wherein the signal processing unit does not include an
electric field detector," the Examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of
claims 11-20 is reversed.
Claim 21
Claim 21 does not recite that the idling information
comprises a plurality of digital bits.
Claim 21 recites "wherein, in response to the presence of
said idling information in one of the successive plurality of
reception signals, said control unit continuously generates
said control signal such that the data information of the
received remote control signal is transmitted from the signal
processing unit to the control unit." We do not find a
suggestion in Suman to continuously generate a control based
on the presence of idling information. Accordingly, we
conclude the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. The rejection of claim 21 is reversed.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION PURSUANT TO 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
- 15 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007