Ex Parte Arul - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-0276                                                        
          Application No. 09/736,941                                                  

                                   THE INVENTION                                      
               The invention relates to “portable electronic devices,                 
          including hand-held remote control units, and the like, and, in             
          particular, to such a device having a power storage/supply                  
          utilizing a super or ultra-capacit[or]” (specification, page 1).            
          Representative claim 1 reads as follows:                                    
               1.  A device for wirelessly controlling an appliance                   
          comprising:                                                                 
               a hand-held enclosure having a plurality of operator                   
          controls supported thereon;                                                 
               a wireless control signal generator;                                   
               electronic circuitry interconnecting the operator controls             
          to [the] wireless control signal generator, the circuitry causing           
          the generator to transmit a wireless signal in response to the              
          operator controls so as to affect the operation of the appliance;           
               a source of electrical energy within the enclosure to power            
          the circuitry, the source of electrical energy consisting                   
          essentially of a supercapacitor or ultracapacitor; and                      
               an input to receive externally applied energy to recharge              
          the supercapacitor or ultracapacitor.                                       
                                   THE PRIOR ART                                      
               The references relied on by the examiner to support the                
          final rejection are:                                                        
          Croy et al. (Croy)          6,040,829          Mar. 21, 2000                
          Tiemann et al. (Tiemann)    6,291,900          Sep. 18, 2001                
                                    THE REJECTION                                     
               Claims 1 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)            
          as being unpatentable over Croy in view of Tiemann.                         

                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007