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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007