Appeal No. 2005-1123 Page 3
Application No. 10/062,921
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. For the reasons
which follow, we sustain the examiner’s rejection.
Appellants have opted to group all of their claims together for purposes of this
appeal (brief, page 2) and have presented arguments as to the patentability of the
claims without regard to any particular claim. Therefore, we shall decide this appeal on
the basis of representative claim 15, with claims 2-4, 6-8, 16-19 and 21-23 standing or
falling therewith. See In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1021-1022, 201 USPQ 658, 660
(CCPA 1979); In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1178-1179, 201 USPQ 67, 70(CCPA
1979); In re Hellsund, 474 F.2d 1307, 1309-1310, 177 USPQ 170, 172(CCPA 1973).
The examiner has rejected claim 15 as being unpatentable over Kovach in view
of Hosono. Kovach discloses an infrared (IR) transmitter (remote control unit) 218
having UP and DOWN buttons 220a, 220b used to remotely activate a window shade
106 provided with a motor 122 mounted in the head rail 102 thereof for driving a reel
shaft 124 which in turn causes movement of a lift cord 120' to raise or lower the blind.
The window shade is also equipped with an interface module having an IR receiver 216.
According to Kovach, in a preferred embodiment, the IR transmitter 218 is
provided with a two-position channel selection switch 222, which allows a user to
choose between two channels A and B. Kovach teaches that “[t]he channel selection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007