Appeal No. 2005-0276
Application No. 09/736,941
remote control unit, thereby arriving at the subject matter
recited in independent claim 1. Hence, the appellant’s
contention that the proposed reference combination rests on
impermissible hindsight is not convincing.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Croy in
view of Tiemann.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 6 and 8 as being unpatentable over Croy in
view of Tiemann.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further defines the input
to receive externally applied energy as an electrical input. The
combined teachings of Croy and Tiemann, and particularly Croy’s
disclosure of an electrical input for receiving externally
applied energy to recharge the remote control unit, would have
suggested this subject matter.
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and requires that the appliance
being controlled by the device, or a unit in electrical
communication with the appliance, include a docking station to
receive the device. The combined teachings of Croy and Tiemann,
and particularly Croy’s disclosure of a base station which (1)
has a docking area for receiving a remote control unit and (2) is
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007