Appeal No. 2006-0742 Page
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,013 13
establish that claim 48 is prima facie obvious over Corazzini (alone or in
combination with Iwasaki).
Next, claim 30 requires that at least one battery be the sole source of
power for the motor. As long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the
references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law requires nothing
more. Here there is no doubt that if the back-up battery was the only power
source, Corazzini's solar powered window shade would still function. Indeed, it is
the very purpose of the back-up battery to provide power when there is no other
power source, e.g., when there is no or insufficient sunlight to generate power to
power the motor. Moreover, Iwasaki's motor is also battery powered. Therefore,
we agree with the examiner that the subject matter of claim 30 is prima facie
obvious over Corazzini in view of Iwasaki.
Finally, as to claim 17, the examiner maintains that "one would modify the
Corazzini's wired remote control with Iwasaki's wireless remote control simply
because the nature of the problems is solved with the Iwaski's wireless remote
control", namely, "(1) the wire (or cable) may be damaged, (2) the difficulty of
wiring a remote control unit, and (3) the remote control unit with a wire is very
inconvenient in using" (Answer, p. 12) Moreover, Iwaski is expressly directed to
solving problems inherent in the use of wired controls, e.g., locating controls for a
variable number of users in variable locations and the increased manufacturing
and installations costs and the increasingly complex switch and motor wiring
associated therewith (see e.g., c. 1, ll. 34-60). Therefore, we agree with the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007