Appeal No. 95-2102
Application No. 08/076,160
In view of the above, Applicant states that
Hornback does not teach a receiver on the antenna
control unit detecting wireless signals from a
remote control channel selector as recited in
Applicant’s claims.
The examiner acknowledges (Supplemental Answer, page 2)
that “Hornback makes no reference to remote control devices.”
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the channel
selector 110 is a remote control device, it would still lack
“wireless” signals as claimed by appellant. For this reason,
the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 20 through 25 based
upon the teachings of Hornback is reversed.
Carney discloses a remote control unit 10 that controls
both an antenna motor 16, and a television receiver 13.
Although the remote control unit 10 is in wireless
communication with the television receiver 13, the remote
control unit 10 is electrically wired to the motor control
circuitry (Figure 1). Appellant argues (Brief, page 5) that
“wireless” transmission between the remote control unit 10 and
the antenna motor 16 is not possible in Carney because of the
“direct electrical wire connection between the remote and the
ACU [antenna control
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007