Appeal No. 2006-0944
Application No. 09/895,584
Turning to the rejection of independent claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Erekson and
Kolde, the examiner cites transceiver 108, at column 6, lines 17-20 and 50-54, as the claimed
“wireless device,” the address/data bus 110, at column 5, lines 38-45, as the claimed “controller,
coupled to the transceiver (citing column 6, lines 47-50), column 2, lines 9-16, for sending a
broadcast message to identify and locate a variety of compliant devices in the area of remote
communication, as the claimed “enumerating a plurality of devices for wireless communication,
and column 2, lines 27-30, for remotely selecting one of the devices for communication.
The examiner notes that Erekson does not disclose “a mouse apparatus where the wireless
interface is clearly coupled to the said apparatus” (final rejection, Paper No. 4, August 26, 2004 -
page 10). The examiner then turns to Kolde, paragraph [0030], where wireless interface remote
control 106 is provided as either a wired or wireless mouse.
The examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the teachings of
Erekson with Kolde “in order to provide the user with the functional aesthetic appeal of a hand-
held computing device incorporated with a mouse capability for easy navigation and control of
the said selected devices” (final rejection, Paper No. 4, August 26, 2004 - page 10).
Our review of the record leads us to the conclusion that the subject matter of independent
claim 21 would have been obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103, over the combination
of Erekson and Kolde.
The subject matter of claim 21 is directed, broadly, to a “system” having three
components: a mouse, a wireless interface coupled to the mouse, and a controller coupled to the
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007