Appeal No. 2005-1123 Page 5
Application No. 10/062,921
Hosono explains that the visible laser beam is provided to overcome the problem
in the prior art that, if there were a number of devices which received the same remote
control format within a close distance in a room, the control extended to devices besides
the target device (translation, page 2). Previous attempts to overcome this problem by
providing separate function keys for each device made the transmitter complex and the
provision of a slide switch to switch control between different devices A to C was
inconvenient, as it required the user to slide the switch with each change of the
operating devices A to C (translation, page 3). Hosono points out that the visible light
beam permits the user to confirm whether the transmitted remote control signal, which
is not visible to the human eye, is accurately directed toward the target device
(translation, page 4). Accordingly, the infrared light signal need not be emitted in a wide
range as was necessary in the prior art (translation, page 3).
Hosono discloses each and every element of claim 15. Specifically, Hosono
discloses a remote control transmitter, for controlling a target device, comprising a laser
beam emitter 6 (means for emitting a visible light beam) and an infrared light emitter 5
(means for emitting an encoded light beam), wherein the encoded infrared beam is
superimposed on the visible light beam (see Figure 4), the encoded infrared beam
carrying commands to the target device (translation, page 5, and claims 1 and 5 of
Hosono). Claim 15 does not recite a window covering. The language “for controlling a
window covering” and “to move the window covering” constitutes intended use. It is well
settled that the recitation of an intended use for an old product does not make a claim to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007