Ex Parte Escobosa et al - Page 5




          Appeal No. 2006-2475                                                              
          Application No. 10/411,792                                                        
                                                                                           
          configurable key of the remote control is actuated for the                        
          purpose of providing enhanced entertainment system” (answer-page                  
          4).                                                                               
                At page 5 of the principal brief, appellants recap the                      
          purpose of their invention, in “offering at a server prearranged                  
          sequence(s) for performing operations appropriate to the features                 
          and capabilities of the devices owned by a user, i.e., those                      
          devices that the user identifies to the server. The user may then                 
          simply download one or more of these server selected, pre-                        
          programmed sequences for use in their remote control.”                            
                Appellants then note that Kemink fails to disclose the                      
          claimed receiving at an Internet Web site/server computer data                    
          that functions to identify at least one of a plurality of                         
          consumer electronic devices whereby the Internet Web site/server                  
          computer uses the data to access one or more pre-programmed                       


          sequence comprising instructions for causing one or more of the                   
          plurality of consumer electronic devices to perform a plurality                   
          of operations when a configurable key of the remote control is                    
          actuated, and that this has been acknowledged by the examiner                     
          (principal brief-pages 5-6).                                                      
                Appellants assert that van Ee also fails to disclose or                     
          suggest the claim elements acknowledged to be missing from                        
          Kemink.  Appellants note that the examiner has cited no passage                   

                                             5                                              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007