Appeal No. 2006-2918
Application 09/844,919
The examiner has indicated how the invention of these claims is
deemed to be fully met by the disclosure of Allport [final rejection, pages
2-5; incorporated into answer at page 31]. With respect to independent claim
1, appellant argues that there is no teaching in Allport of a wireless local
area network. More particularly, appellant argues that Allport is limited to a
remote control that directly communicates with the base station 75 and not
more than one user device [brief, pages 6-7]. The examiner responds that
the wireless communication link between the base station and remote control
of Allport meets the definition of a network as set forth in the IEEE 100
Dictionary. The examiner also points out that Allport discloses multiple
displays and is, therefore, not limited to a single user appliance [answer,
pages 4-5]. Appellant responds that the base station and remote control of
Allport communicate directly and, therefore, do not form a network as set
forth in claim 1. Appellant also points out that the base station and remote
control of Allport fail to meet the recitation of a plurality of user appliances
in claim 1. Appellant also responds that the multiple displays of Allport do
not represent a plurality of user appliances, but instead, represent multiple
displays on a single device. Finally, appellant asserts that the examiner’s
reliance on the IEEE dictionary is improper for a rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 [reply brief, pages 1-3].
1 Such incorporation of previous actions is not proper under current practice.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007