Appeal No. 2006-3093 Page 10
Application No. 10/754,306
The examiner disagrees [answer, pages 10-12]. The examiner notes that
Shintani is relied upon to teach the controlled device sending remote device
information to the remote control and Kitao is relied upon to teach the controlled
device is responding to a signal (i.e., a trigger signal) sent from the remote control
where the response signal transmitted from the controlled device includes device
and function information [answer, page 10, cont’d page 11]. The examiner
maintains that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
modify Shintani to receive Kitao’s control code table from a remote control
interface of an electronic device to eliminate the memory space required to store
numerous device code and associated control code tables onboard the remote
control [answer, page 12].
At the outset, we do not agree with appellants’ assertion that Shintani fails to
teach or suggest the remote (i.e., controlled) devices send out a response signal
(i.e., to the remote control) where the received response signal includes remote
device information [see brief, page 9]. We find that appellants arguments have
narrowly focused on a single (i.e., passive) embodiment disclosed by Shintani. In
particular, we note the language of Shintani’s claim 3 (as copied in appellants’
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007