Appeal No. 2004-2179
Application No. 09/785,919
respect to the control desired for the personal computer 12
itself from the remote control unit 50’ in a corresponding
manner.
The examiner’s reliance upon the paragraph bridging columns
8 and 9 is significant in that the teaching there permits the
overall structure of figure 2 to control other devices beyond a
television, to include satellite receivers or VCRs. This
analysis expands the nature of the translation and the number and
different types of first and second consumer devices along with
their respective formats.
Even though we have considered earlier that the claims do
not require necessarily that different devices and different
formats of the second and third formats be positively set forth
in the claims, even this analysis of the examiner as amplified by
us in the previous paragraph is consistent to meet the most
particular arguments of appellants in the brief and reply brief.
Appellants’ remarks at page 1 of the reply brief concerning
the so-called first error of the examiner is correct in the sense
that the examiner has the burden to provide evidence in the form
of Schultheiss that it necessarily operates in the claimed
fashion. As we construe the examiner’s statement of the
rejection along with the remarks portion of the answer, among
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007