Appeal No. 2004-2179
Application No. 09/785,919
As revealed in the abstract, the reader should not lose
sight of the fact that Schultheiss teaches “a unified
television/personal computer wireless remote control.”
In view of construing the subject matter actually recited in
claim 26 and even in light of appellants’ arguments, we also note
in passing that the operability or functionality of the subject
matter of claim 26 appears to be inclusive of what appellants
admitted at pages 1 and 2 of the specification as filed to be
known in the art. Different types of devices are clearly stated
to be controllable in single prior art remote control units, to
include different functionalities of control for each of the
respective devices, which further include the use of different
infrared control protocols which, as admitted, require different
command sets to operate. Thus, it appears that the subject
matter of representative argued independent claim 26 does not
read over appellants’ own admitted prior art.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting certain claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and certain claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007