Appeal No. 2006-3093 Page 9
Application No. 10/754,306
The examiner disagrees [answer, page 8]. The examiner asserts that
Shintani’s remote control unit 51 receives a response signal that includes
information identifying a remote device [id.]. The examiner notes that Shintani’s
light emitter 15E of electronic device 15 (see fig. 1, CD player) radiates infrared
ID signals into the room space and remote control unit 51 detects the infrared ID
signals and determines whether or not a control signal corresponding to the
detected ID signal has been read from the memory [id.]. The examiner further
notes that the CPU of remote control unit 51 controls the display information
required to selectively operate the electronic device 15 that corresponds to the
detected ID signal (col. 5 lines 12 to 38; see figs. 1 to 8) [id.]. The examiner
concludes that one skilled in the art would have understood that remote control
device 51 identifies the remote device 15 by the detected ID signal [id.] Thus, the
examiner corresponds the ID signal that includes information identifying the
remote device 15 to the claimed remote device information [id.].
In addition, appellants argue that because Shintani has no need to store the
device codes and control codes of any electronic device, the examiner's proffered
motivation fails to show how one of ordinary skill would have been led to combine
the references [brief, page 14, reply brief, page 4, ¶3].
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007