Ex Parte SATO - Page 3




          Appeal No. 2000-0427                                                        
          Application No. 08/773,173                                                  

               a transmitting unit, connected to said control means, for              
          wirelessly transmitting a second command signal, directly to a              
          selected appliance, at the same time said first command signal is           
          transmitted, said second command signal having a second infrared            
          carrier frequency, different than said first infrared carrier               
          frequency, said second command signal controlling operation of              
          said selected appliance in response to said user operation;                 
               wherein said first and second command signals do not                   
          interfere with each other even though wirelessly transmitted                
          through an operational range of common space in the vicinity of             
          said selected appliance.                                                    
               The examiner relies on the following references:                       
          Rumbolt et al. (Rumbolt)      4,703,359           Oct. 27, 1987             
          Seymour et al. (Seymour)      4,709,412           Nov. 24, 1987             
          Schepers et al. (Schepers)    4,965,557           Oct. 23, 1990             
          Dockery                       5,142,397           Aug. 25, 1992             
          Emmons                        5,243,430           Sep.  7, 1993             
          Ikezaki                       5,367,316           Nov. 22, 1994             
                                   (effective filing date Mar. 27, 1990)              
          Kohar et al. (Kohar)          5,554,979           Sep. 10, 1996             
          (effective filing date Feb. 24, 1992)                                       
          Admitted Prior Art.                                                         
               Claims 1, 5, 7, 16, 39, and 41-42 stand rejected under 35              
          U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dockery in view of the              
          admitted prior art.                                                         
               Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                
          unpatentable over Dockery in view of the admitted prior art and             
          Schepers.                                                                   
                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007