Appeal No. 2000-0427
Application No. 08/773,173
appliances, there would be an interference in the two wireless
signals. However, we are of the opinion that whereas Dockery is
directed to extending the range of the remote commander 20 to
farther locations from the controlled devices, it does not
preclude that the same device could be modified to operate in the
vicinity of the appliances. We are further of the view that an
artisan would have found it obvious to transmit the infrared
signal from commander 20 at a frequency different from the
transmitter signal from transmitter 42 so that the two signals do
not interfere with each other and hence rendering the controller
useless. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 1 over Dockery in view of the admitted prior art. Whereas
we have applied the references slightly different from the
examiner’s characterization of the elements in Figure 1 of
Dockery, we are still relying on the same references as the
examiner. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this does not
constitute a new ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491,
496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-267 (CCPA 1961).
Even though appellant selected these claims as part of Group
I, appellant makes a reference to claim 10 with respect to
Schepers as addition to the combination; claims 30-33 with
respect to Seymour as addition to the combination; and addition
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007