Appeal No. 1998-2692
Application 08/512,239
appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We first consider Group I (claims 3, 8, 19 and 21) with
independent claim 19 as the representative claim. The
examiner asserts that Lambropoulos teaches all the limitations
of claim 19 except for the transmitting means having a low
output power level and a high output power level. The
examiner cites Boyles as teaching a remote control transmitter
which has both a high output power level and a low output
power level. The examiner then indicates why the invention of
claim 19 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103 [answer, pages 4-6].
Appellant makes the following argument with respect to
claim 19:
Boyles et al. system contemplates
sending operational commands at both a
standard power and a reduced power.
However, Boyles et al. only discloses
transmitting the secure data (i.e.,
the security code) from the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007