Appeal No. 1996-3600
Application 08/284,371
The examiner’s proposal to replace Beyer’s remote with
Welles’ remote makes no sense to us. Even if the Welles
remote has been programmed to learn the commands of the Beyers
remote, the Welles remote in combination with the Beyers
system will not have the input and decoder as recited in
claims 106 and 142. In other words, the Welles remote will
simply operate as the Beyers remote, and programming the
Welles remote cannot provide input and decoding functions to
the Beyers system which the Beyers system did not have in the
first place.
Furthermore, we can find no motivation whatsoever for
combining the teachings of Beyers with those of Welles. It
would appear that nothing can be gained by using a universal
remote in Beyers that has anything to do with the claimed
invention. Even if the teachings are combined, however, the
recitations of independent claims 106 and 142 are not met by
the combined teachings of these references as discussed above.
Since the teachings of Beyers and Welles, singly or in
combination, do not teach or suggest the features of
independent claims 106 and 142, we do not sustain the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007