Appeal No. 95-2102
Application No. 08/076,160
unit].” We agree. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of3
claims
20 through 25 based upon the teachings of Carney is reversed.
In the obviousness rejection of claims 20 through 25, the
examiner indicates (Answer, page 3) that:
The patent to Hornback discloses an automatic
antenna positioning system comprising a channel
selector 110, a microprocessor 12 and rotor control
120 for controlling the antenna. Hornback differs
from the claims in that the claims recite a wireless
remote control unit. However, the patent to Burton
discloses a programmable electronic antenna rotator
comprising a I.R.XMTR 200. Since the substitution
of wired or wireless remote control is well known in
the art; it would have been obvious to provide
Hornback with the wireless remote control as taught
by Burton.
Appellant and the examiner both agree that Burton’s
antenna is rotated under the control of the wireless remote
control device 200, and that Burton does not disclose
television receiver control with the wireless remote control
device (Reply Brief, pages 2 through 4, and Supplemental
Answer, page 2).
3The attached dictionary definitions of “remote control”
indicate that control signals may be transmitted to a distant
object via wires, sound, ultrasonics, light, radio or
mechanical means.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007