Appeal No. 1998-2692
Application 08/512,239
reduced power level. Boyles provides essentially the same
incentive as set forth in appellant’s own specification. For
these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 8, 19 and
21 as set forth by the examiner.
We now consider Group II (claims 11 and 20) with claim 20
as the representative claim. The examiner’s rejection
indicates that Lambropoulos teaches the pseudo-random code
recitations of claim 20 [answer, pages 4-5]. Appellant argues
that Lambropoulos only loads a pseudo-random number into the
transmitter and transfers this number to the receiver and does
not teach the generation and the changing of the pseudo-
random code in both the remote controller and the user
apparatus as recited in claim 20 [brief, page 8].
We agree with appellant that Lambropoulos does not teach
or suggest the generation and update of the pseudo-random
codes in both the transmitter and the receiver as recited in
claim 20. Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 11 and 20.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007