Appeal No. 1999-1605
Application 08/502,882
have a router in a system (see figure 7(b)) for representing
the processing in a system" (FR2).
It appears that the Examiner's rejection is based on
claim 15 being so broad that it is rendered obvious over
Tanaka in an unintended way, rather than Tanaka actually being
directed to Appellants' disclosed invention. Appellants have
not shown error in the Examiner's broad interpretation of
claim 15 or in the Examiner's findings underlying the
conclusion of obviousness.
The transmitters 2, 3 in Tanaka correspond to the claimed
"multiple remote control devices." The OCR transmitter is
broadly a "remote control device" in that it remotely controls
entry of data which is broadly a "desired user interaction
with an application" and Appellants have not explained how the
remote control claim language distinguishes over the OCR. The
remote control devices are not recited to have "user input
devices" as in independent claim 1. Although we believe that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that
the keyboard and OCR are only representative transmitters and
that it would have been
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007