Appeal No. 97-0783
Application 08/396,184
Appellant points out that the claimed transfer switch sends data that has been previously entered
into the remote controller by other input means. Appellant argues that the remote controller of Koide
does not have a transfer switch as recited in independent claims 7 and 10 [brief, pages 9-14]. It is
further argued that there is no control means for maintaining data entered into the display as recited in
independent claims 7 and 10 [id., pages 14-15]. We agree with each of appellant’s arguments.
The examiner has failed to consider all the language of claims 7 and 10. The rejection only notes
that Koide teaches a transfer switch for transferring a control signal to the video recorder. Claims 7
and 10, however, additionally recite “the control signal including data entered in response to operation
of said start switch [second user input means] [emphasis added]. Thus, it is not enough that a control
signal such as “play” be sent to the video recorder. The control signal must also include data entered in
response to operation of the start switch. Koide in no way suggests transferring any data from the
remote control unit to the video recorder along with a control signal. The examiner has simply failed to
address this limitation of claims 7 and 10 and has failed to address appellant’s arguments directed to
this language of the claims.
With respect to the means for maintaining data entered into the display feature of claims 7 and 10,
the examiner continues to cite column 6, lines 57-61 of Koide despite appellant’s assertions that there
is nothing in that portion of Koide related to the examiner’s point. Appellant is clearly correct that the
portion of Koide cited by the examiner is irrelevant to the claimed feature. It appears that the examiner
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007