Appeal No. 2006-3093 Page 8
Application No. 10/754,306
GROUP A, claims 1-3, 7, 16-18 and 66-68
We consider first the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 16-18 and 66-68
as being unpatentable over the teachings of Shintani in view of Kitao. We note that
appellants have specifically designated claim 1 as the representative claim for this
group [brief, page 9].
Appellants argue the proposed combination of Shintani and Kitao does not
teach nor suggest the claimed feature of: “the received response signal including
remote device information” [brief, page 9]. Appellants argue that claim 1 requires
that the transmitter of the hand-held pointing device send out a signal to a remote
device and, in response, the remote device sends a response signal to the hand-held
pointing device [brief, page 10]. Appellants assert that the claimed response signal
contains the remote device information identifying the remote device and available
functions that may be performed by the remote device [id.]. Appellants argue that
Shintani does not teach nor suggest this feature because Shintani does not teach nor
suggest that the remote devices send out a response signal [id.]. Appellants also
assert that Kitao is devoid of any disclosure regarding this claimed feature [id.].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007