Appeal No. 2006-1090
Application No. 09/848,005
The examiner finds that the reference to operator communication via a remote
LAN connection would have been understood by the artisan as inclusive of wireless LAN
connections. The claims have also been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, further relying
on Ahmadi for its teachings with respect to a wireless LAN base and mobile stations.
However, appellant does not contest the examiner’s finding that the Brooks reference
describes a wireless LAN connection, but does argue that language in the instant claims
distinguishes over the applied prior art.
Instant claim 25 recites wirelessly receiving “commands” from the portable control
unit when an operator responds to operator messages which have been wirelessly
transmitted to the portable control unit. According to appellant, Brooks teaches making
document corrections via “conventional data entry procedures,” but does not disclose or
suggest reception of “commands” from a portable control unit as claimed. (Brief at 7.)
However, we agree with the examiner that corrections of documents as described
by Brooks are instances of “commands” that are sent to the document processor.
Brooks describes entry of characters for correction, which may be by “conventional data
entry procedures.” However, when the corrected data is entered, there are necessarily
indications to the processor that the document information has been corrected and that
further processing may proceed. Transmission of such “commands” could be effected
by as simple an operation as pressing a carriage return. Claim 25 does not specify any
required format for the commands, nor even what the processing transport might do in
response to reception of the commands.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007