Appeal No. 1999-0419
Application 08/383,483
dependent claims 8-12 depending from independent claim 7 even though they may
further rely upon still further additional references since they do not cure the
deficiencies with respect to their respective independent claims 5 and 7.
The rejection of independent claim 5 is also reversed because Solari, relied upon
by the examiner in combination with Kozuki, Citizen, Hurwitz and Nakajima to reject this
claim, has no teachings or suggestions in it, even if properly combined with the four
references to meet the argued features, as appellants point out very well in the principal
brief on appeal, of the feature of an input coding means performing a coding operation
of a predetermined position of an object and the rotation angle corresponding thereto
along with the details of the memory and the micro-computer at the end of claim 5 on
appeal.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 14-22 as being obvious over the collective
teachings and showings of Kozuki, Citizen, and Blazek. From our earlier discussion it is
apparent that the combination of Kozuki and Citizen does not teach a low power
television transmitter as required by independent claim 14 on appeal. The examiner
relies upon Blazek as to this feature, specifically the view that Figures 1b and 6b of
Blazek teache a low power television transmitter. As indicated at pages 36 and 37 of
the principal brief on appeal, the examiner misperceives the low power transmitter 60
specifically taught to be for audio signals as a television transmitter of video signals.
The discussion beginning at the middle of column 7 of Blazek specifically teaches at
lines 40-43 that "audio from the CD player 53 is used to modulate the radio transmitter
60, which is provided with a radiating antenna 61." The Figure 6b embodiment does
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007