Appeal No. 2000-0427
Application No. 08/773,173
in Dockery. In our deliberations, controller 20 in Figure 1 of
Dockery is considered as the claimed remote commander and
repeaters 24 and 38 together are considered as the claimed
controller, and 10 and 12 are the selected controlled devices.
The remote commander 20 sends an infrared signal as a wireless
signal to the receiver 26 in the controller, which in turn sends
a wireless signal (infrared signal) from the transmitter 42
directed to the selected appliances 10 and 12. Dockery does not
explicitly state that commander 20 transmits a signal at a
different frequency than transmitter 42 transmits its signal to
the receivers 14 and 16 of the selected appliances 10 and 12.
The examiner relies on the admitted prior art that is well known
in the art to have these signals be transmitted at different
frequencies. We note that appellant has not questioned the
transmission of the signals at different frequencies in the
briefs. Rather, appellant attacks the Dockery reference and the
admitted prior art individually, and not as a combination. Thus,
appellant states, brief at page 14, that “none of the prior art
cited by the Examiner provides each and every limitation claimed
in claim 1.” At the hearing, appellant’s representative stated
that Dockery’s device is designed to operate in locations remote
from the appliances, and that, if used in the vicinity of the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007