Appeal No. 2005-1123 Page 7
Application No. 10/062,921
control transmitter, in place of the two-channel IR transmitter of Kovach, comes from
both of the references, as pointed out by the examiner on page 4 of the answer.
Specifically, both Kovach and Hosono recognize that the placement of two or more
remotely controlled devices controlled by the same transmitter in close proximity to one
another renders it more difficult for the operator to target the intended device for control.
Further, Hosono appreciates that the two-channel solution in prior art transmitters such
as that of Kovach is inconvenient for operators and teaches one instead to provide on
the transmitter means for emitting a visible light beam, aligned with and narrower than
the IR control beam, to help the operator to direct the control beam to target the
intended device for control. As such, Hosono would have provided ample motivation to
one of ordinary skill in the art to provide in Kovach’s remote control transmitter a means
for emitting a visible laser beam, coaxial with and narrower than the emitted IR control
beam, to permit the operator to accurately target the intended window blind for control.
The appellants’ argument that Hosono is non-analogous art (brief, page 3) is not
well taken. Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous: (1)
whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor,
whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
the inventor is involved. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060
(Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007