Appeal No. 95-3891
Application 08/066,405
addressed by the examiner, who instead broadly contends it would
have been obvious in view of the prior art that
the keys whether they are distinct key [sic, keys] are
[sic, or] plural function key [sic] can be used as a
predetermined group of keys each representing a
different device; and after the key selects the device
the same or other keys can select different function
[sic] in view of Harger et al, Kocher et al, and a
suggestion in Figure 4 of Platte et al. [Answer at 5.]
and also that it would have been obvious "to use a single [sic,
key] or plural keys to initiate a system and control devices in
the system" (Answer at 6).
Nor is it apparent to us how the reference teachings
can be (or why they would be) combined to satisfy the memory and
addressing limitations of claim 1 or the corresponding steps of
claim 2. As appellants correctly note, Platte does not require a
plural-step setup procedure to identify which stored formatting
data corresponds to a device category key, because every device
to be controlled has a corresponding memory element that is
accessed by activation of its corresponding selection key (e.g.,
"TV" in Fig. 4). Thus, assuming for the sake of argument that it
would have been obvious to use Platte's transmitter to control
two devices in the same category (e.g., two TVs), each would have
a corresponding memory element and selection key (e.g., TV1 and
TV2). In other words, when Platte's keys are in the mode
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007