Appeal No. 2006-0742 Page
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,013 9
D. Appellants' position
Appellants agree that "Iwasaki's remote control unit in general might be a
nice thing to have," but argue that combining Iwasaki's remote control unit with
Corrazini [sic] would interfere "with a main purpose of Corrazini [sic], namely, its
daytime-nighttime programming" and, therefore, a skilled artisan would not have
been motivated to combine Iwasaki and Corazzini (Brief, p. 5). Appellants further
argue "that it is unclear just how the wireless receiver of Iwasaki, which nowhere
considers a solar energy source, could be grafted onto the solar-powered blind of
Corrazini [sic], particularly since Corrazini [sic] does not show any circuit at all"
(Brief, p. 6). In particular, appellants maintain that "the examiner's personal,
unsupported observations about the advantages of using wireless commands"
fails to consider the particular structure of the primary reference (id.).
With respect to claim 21, appellants argue that "it is the absence of a
signal in Iwasaki that causes the motor to stop" and "the absence of something
(e.g., a control signal) does not equate to an explicitly recited something (the
stopping control signal of Claim 21)" (Brief, p. 7, original emphasis).
With respect to claim 30, appellants further argue that a system using at
least one battery as the sole source of power is structurally different from the
multi-source system of Corazzini wherein the battery 68 is just a back-up source
of power (Brief, p. 8).
With respect to claim 48, appellants still further argue that the examiner
deems the elements recited, but not shown, in claim 48 to be "design
expedients." (Brief, p. 9). According to appellants, the examiner's personal
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007