Appeal No. 2006-0944
Application No. 09/895,584
Appellants argue that, as admitted by the examiner, Erekson does not disclose a device
having the operators of claims 1 and 11, but they also argue that Goldstein does not cure this
deficiency of Erekson. The reason asserted by appellants is that Goldstein is directed to a
universal remote that does not interpret different actuations of the operators selectively, as
required by the claims. While Goldstein does disclose a touch screen display for producing icon
menus that a user may use to select a particular device and/or programming service, appellants
argue that the mere selection of a device or programming service using a universal remote
control is not the same as enabling different actuations of operators to be interpreted selectively.
That is, “there is no teaching in the cited passages of Goldstein that icons can be actuated in
different ways to produce a different result depending on the type of actuation” (principal brief-
page 13).
We have considered the evidence in this case, including the disclosures of the applied
references and the arguments of appellants and the examiner and we conclude therefrom that the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§103.
As both parties admit, Erekson lacks any teaching of the “operators,” as claimed,
“enabling different actuations of said operators to be interpreted selectively as either the selection
of a device for communication or the programming of the operator to communicate upon
actuation with a particular device.” Thus, in order for the examiner’s rejection to be upheld, this
deficiency of Erekson must be taught or suggested by Goldstein and, even if taught or suggested
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007