Appeal No. 2006-0944
Application No. 09/895,584
The examiner points to column 2, lines 27-30, of Erekson for remotely selecting one of a
plurality of devices 10, 20, 30, 40 with which to communicate. The examiner notes, however,
that Erekson fails to teach a plurality of devices for wireless communication using a device
having operators associated with at least two of the devices, enabling different actuations of the
operators associated with the at least two of the devices, and enabling different actuations of
operators to be interpreted selectively as either the selection of a device for communication or
programming of the operator to communicate upon actuation with a particular device.
The examiner turns to Goldstein for a teaching, at column 3, lines 14-28, and 58-67, and
column 4, lines 6-10, of a universal programmable remote control device with the capability of
selecting a plurality of wireless devices and enabling different actuations of icons representing
various services for each controlled device. The examiner contends that this teaching of
Goldstein reads on “said operators associated with at least two of the said devices.”
The examiner further asserts that Goldstein discloses enabling different actuations of the
icons to be interpreted selectively as either the selection of a device for communication or
programming of the icons to communicate upon actuation with a particular device.
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Erekson “to include
Goldstein...in order to for the said remote device to be functionally capable to select a plurality of
devices to communicate within an environment to further program the said icon to communicate
the said selected device” [sic] (Final rejection-Paper No. 4, August 26, 2004 - page 3).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007