Appeal No. 2000-0427
Application No. 08/773,173
Group I
We take claim 1, as representative, for the analysis of this
group. In response to the obviousness rejection of claim 1
(answer at pages 3-5), appellant argues (brief at pages 11-14)
that, contrary to the examiner’s assertion, element 38 of Dockery
is not a selected appliance as claimed. Rather, appellant
argues, id. at page 13, that “Dockery specifically distinguishes
its autonomous second repeater 38 from a controlled device 10 or
12. . . . Accordingly, the second repeater 38 can not be
considered the selected appliance that is controlled by a second
command signal as claimed in claim 1.” We agree with appellant’s
observation regarding the repeater 38 and controlled appliances
10 and 12 of Dockery. However, appellant is charged with the
complete disclosure of an applied reference, as has been
established that “‘[a]ll of the disclosures in a reference must
be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in
the art.’” In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277
(CCPA 1968)(quoting In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507,
510 (CCPA 1966)). We find that it is clear from Figure 1 and the
associated text (column 2, line 66 through column 3, line 57)
that the controlled devices are 10 and 12, which represent a
variety of devices to be selectively controlled by the controller
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007