Appeal No. 1998-0943
Application No. 08/300,500
the obviousness rejection of this claim. In our view, any
combined structure resulting from the Examiner’s proposed
combination of the generalized power conservation features of
Kannan and the wireless communication system of McCain would
not address the specific limitations of claim 13 which set
forth specific “out-of-range” criteria for input positional
and selection data.
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, and 11, but have not
sustained the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 8 and 10.
Further, we have not sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 4, 12, and 13. Therefore, the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 4, and 6-13 is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007