Appeal No. 2005-1123 Page 8
Application No. 10/062,921
Hosono is analogous art with respect to the invention recited in claim 15, as both
Hosono and claim 15 are from the field of remote control units. Moreover, even if
Hosono were not considered to be from the same field of endeavor as the invention of
claim 15, Hosono is still reasonably pertinent to the particular problem which the
appellants’ invention seeks to solve, namely, permitting the operator to direct the remote
control beam at just one receiver when one or more actuators are placed in close
proximity to one another (see appellants’ specification, page 1, and the discussion of
Hosono above). Therefore, Hosono qualifies as analogous art with respect to the
appellants’ invention under either of the two established criteria.
For all of the above reasons, we shall sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim
15, as well as claims 2-4, 6-8, 16-19 and 21-23 which stand or fall with claim 15, as
being unpatentable over Kovach in view of Hosono.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2-4, 6-8, 15-19 and
21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007