Appeal No. 2006-3093 Page 14
Application No. 10/754,306
GROUP B, claims 4, 19 and 69
Lastly, we consider the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 4, 19 and
69 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Shintani in view of Kitao. We note
that appellants have specifically designated claim 4 as the representative claim for
this group [brief, page 17].
Appellants argue that neither Shintani nor Kitao show or suggest the claimed
feature of: “the new remote device information is appended to the remote device
information in the memory” [brief, page 17]. Appellants also restate their previous
argument that there is no motivation to modify Shintani with the teachings of Kitao
[brief, page 18].
The examiner disagrees [answer, page 13]. The examiner notes that Shintani
discloses if the detected ID signal is not registered in NVRAM 74, then CPU 71
reads a control signal corresponding to the detected ID signal from ROM 72 and
registers the control signal in NVRAM 74 (col. 5, lines 20-24) [id.]. The examiner
concludes that a new response signal has new remote device information that is
registered to the NVRAM [id.].
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007