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.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007