Appeal No. 2006-3093 Page 11
Application No. 10/754,306
brief on page 11) that specifically discloses a response signal that includes
identification signals (i.e., remote device information) that is sent in response to a
remote control presence signal:
3. The system of claim 2 further comprising room remote
control unit presence detecting means for causing said
plurality of devices to transmit their respective
identification signals in response to a remote control
presence signal [emphasis added].
Likewise, we further note that Shintani’s claim 9 (col. 9, lines 4-9)
specifically discloses the transmission of a response signal that includes device
identification signals (i.e., remote device information) that is sent in response to the
transmission of a device identification roll call signal by the remote control unit:
9. A method according to claim 8, wherein said step of
causing the electronic devices to output signals comprises
the step of causing the electronic devices to output
infrared radiations as said device identification signals in
response to transmission of a device identification roll
call signal by said remote control unit [emphasis added].
Accordingly, we find that the examiner’s proffered combination of Shintani
and Kitao teaches all that is claimed with respect to representative claim 1.
Furthermore, we do not agree with appellants that the examiner has failed to
provide a proper motivation for combining the references. We note that the Court
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007