Appeal No. 2000-0427
Application No. 08/773,173
rejection of claim 16. Consequently, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 16 and its dependent claims 5 and 39 over
Dockery in view of the admitted prior art.
Group III
In response to the rejection of this group, claims 18 and
27-29 (answer at pages 6 and 7), appellant argues, after
discussing Emmons beyond the earlier discussion of Dockery and
the admitted prior art, brief at page 16, that “[n]either Emmons
nor Dockery are directed toward the object of controlling
multiple appliances.” We disagree. As stated above, Dockery is
indeed directed to controlling multiple devices such as 10 and 12
in Figure 1. The examiner did not rely on Emmons for the
teaching of controlling multiple appliances. The examiner
employed Emmons for the proposition of transmitting different
sets of command signals along mutually different directions, and
not for curing the deficiency of Dockery as perceived by
appellant. Appellant has not argued the combination of Emmons
and Dockery. Instead, appellant has relied on the argument that
Dockery does not show the claimed remote control and the
controller as claimed and that Emmons does not cure this
deficiency. No other arguments are presented. Therefore, we
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007