Appeal No. 2006-0944
Application No. 09/895,584
remote device is in the vicinity, an icon appears, or is assigned, on the hand held device and that
icon is then used by the user to select a particular remote device. Thus, the icon is an operator
that is programmed to select one of a plurality of sufficiently proximate devices, as claimed.
Again, it is the icons, not button 75, which the examiner identifies as the claimed programmable
operator.
Having thus found that the icons, once presented on the display, are the programmable
operators, the artisans would have found it obvious that such icons may be replaced by buttons to
be pressed rather than icons to be touched. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims
26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Claim 30, dependent on claims 21 and 29, calls for storing identifying information about
the sufficiently proximate device in a volatile storage initially, and then selectively transferring
the information to a nonvolatile storage.
Appellants argue that the examiner has not shown this operation in Erekson. While
appellants admit that Erekson depicts a volatile and non-volatile memory, there is no indication
that the remote device characteristics are initially stored in volatile memory.
We agree with appellants that while Erekson discloses a volatile and non-volatile
memory, e.g., column 5, lines 43-53, there is absolutely no indication in Erekson as to initially
storing identifying information about the sufficiently proximate devices in a volatile storage and
then selectively transfer that information to the non-volatile storage. If there is any obvious
reason for doing so, the examiner has not postulated such a reason.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007