Appeal No. 2006-0944
Application No. 09/895,584
suggests the selection and control of one of a plurality of remote devices by an apparatus. Kolde
suggests that one known type of a remote controller is a wireless mouse. Clearly then, the skilled
artisan would have realized that such a wireless mouse may be used as the apparatus for selecting
and controlling one of a plurality of remote devices. Merely because Erekson teaches a very
specific way of selecting and controlling remote devices, viz., through the selection of icons on a
hand held device (palmtop or hand held computer), this does not negate the use of other known
ways and apparatus for selecting and controlling the remote devices. In view of Kolde’s
teaching, it would have been obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103, to employ a
wireless mouse as the apparatus for selecting and controlling one of a plurality of remote devices.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Appellants separately argue the merits of dependent claims 26, 27, and 30.
With regard to claim 26, appellants argue that the plurality of programmable operators,
each of the operators being programmable to select one of a plurality of sufficiently proximate
devices, is not disclosed by Erekson. In particular, appellants admit that Erekson may include
programmable buttons 75, but there is no indication that these buttons are programmed with the
identity of one of a plurality of devices and it has not been shown that the icons on display 105
are user programmable with the identity of one of the plurality of devices.
We disagree with appellants. As disclosed in column 8, lines 33-55, of Erekson, remote
devices are located and identified by transmitting a broadcast message. When a compliant
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007