Appeal No. 97-1384
Application 08/068,357
that such a "change" in ID number is not part of the claimed
subject matter.
The claim language clearly calls for the switch being
"selectable" to a plurality of positions and that each position
represents a predetermined ID number identifying the remote
controllable system. Therefore, the examiner must show that the
prior art suggests at least the capability of changing the ID
number of the remote controllable system by selecting one of a
plurality of switch positions.
Although Rubin suggests, at column 5, lines 6-10,
quoted supra, that the intended recipient has an identifier code,
and Rubin also suggests, at column 5, lines 43-45, that the
keyboard 50 may be used to identify the number of the intended
recipient, the examiner has failed to identify any portion of
Rubin, and we are unaware of any such portion, which indicates
that that number of the intended recipient is anything but fixed.
To assume that the identification number of the intended
recipient in Rubin is variable, or changeable, is to resort to
speculation. Speculation may not constitute the rationale for a
conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Accordingly, since claims 1, 3, 7, 8 and 13 include the
"switch" limitation, we will not sustain the rejection of these
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007