Appeal No. 2002-1280
Application 08/995,996
setting of the user defined code in the transmitter is not
related to storing the user defined code in the receiver in
either Drori or Karasawa. The examiner's rejection does not
address the limitation of "transmitting the user defined code" in
a user defined code setting mode even though appellant has argued
the limitation several places. Although it may seem like a minor
difference, every limitation must be considered in addressing
obviousness. See In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545,
548 (CCPA 1970) ("every limitation positively recited in a claim
must be given effect in order to determine what subject matter
that claim defines"). Because the rejection does not address how
the limitation of "transmitting the user defined code" in a user
defined code setting mode in claim 1 is met by the combination,
the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. This limitation is also found in claims 9 and 12.
Claim 5 does not recite "transmitting the user defined code" in a
user defined code setting mode, but recites "transmitting the
user defined code to the receiver, thereby activating a user
defined code setting mode in the receiver " (emphasis added),
which is not addressed by the rejection.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007