Appeal No. 1996-4065
Application No. 08/234,115
With regard to the rejection of claims 5 through 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al.,
Enomoto et al. and Smith, Appellant argues:
The remote controller of Evans et al. is
also capable of being programmed to cause a
predetermined sequence of steps to be performed in
conjunction with one or more devices (column 8,
lines 16-21). ...
As described above, Evans et al. requires
the activation of two keys to achieve control of
more than one device. (Brief-pages 9 and 10.)
Reviewing Evans at column 8, lines 5 et seq., we
note that Evans does in fact “control different operations in
at least two of said apparatus” as claimed, but uses two keys.
However, the first key, preset key 46, only indicates that the
next key will be a pre-programmed key. When the pre-programed
key is actuated, the claimed operations are performed.
Appellant’s claim does not recite a “single” key, and does not
preclude using a preset key first. In a similar manner, if
key 40 were in the learn mode, it would have to be actuated to
obtain the run mode. Thus Appellant might argue that three
keys may have to be actuated to perform the plural operations,
i.e. key 40 (to obtain the run mode), then key 46 (to indicate
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007