Ex parte MCCONNELL et al. - Page 7

                Appeal No. 95-3891                                                                                                            
                Application 08/066,405                                                                                                        

                07/164,314,  in which it was determined that claims 1 and 2,3                                                                                                          
                which are now before us in amended form, are unpatentable for                                                                 
                obviousness over Platte.  The quoted passage explains that in                                                                 
                reaching that decision, the panel held, inter alia, that the                                                                  
                artisan would have understood that different manufacturers use                                                                
                different remote control formats for their control codes, that                                                                
                nothing in Platte suggests using only appliances from the same                                                                
                manufacturer or with the same control format, that Platte does                                                                
                not put a limit on the number of appliances to be controlled or                                                               
                the number of locations for plug-in memories, and that Platte                                                                 
                "contemplates acquiring memories along with new appliances and                                                                
                using vacant (not occupied) slots relative thereto."  These                                                                   
                findings are not disputed by appellants in this appeal.  We note                                                              
                that these findings appear to reflect the previous panel's belief                                                             
                that the preambles of those appealed claims, which are identical                                                              
                to the preambles of claims 1 and 2 now before us and describe the                                                             
                types of devices having formatting data stored in the memory                                                                  
                means, are entitled to weight.  We concur in that view, because                                                               
                the references to "said plurality of devices" in the "memory                                                                  
                means" limitation of claim 1 and in the third "user activation"                                                               

                3Decision mailed July 22, 1992, in Appeal No. 92-0582, adhered                                                                
                to in a Decision on Reconsideration mailed April 28, 1993.                                                                    


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007