Appeal No. 2007-0421
Application No. 10/151,635
identified is adapted to respond. Appellants note the examiner’s reliance on column 22, lines 10-
32, of Allport, but find nothing therein describing that anything is uploaded from the remote
control to an internet server, let alone for the purpose of retrieving those control codes to which
an identified appliance is adapted to respond (see page 8 of the principal brief).
We agree with appellants.
The claimed feature of uploading the identifying data to an internet server and using that
server to retrieve control codes from a database is nowhere suggested in Yang and the examiner
admits as much. Therefore, in order for the outstanding rejection to have any legs at all, such a
feature must be described or suggested in Allport before we even reach the question of
combinability.
We simply do not find such features to be suggested by Allport. It is true that Allport
suggests, at column 26, lines 12-16, for example, that data for specific devices may be stored on
an internet server and then retrieved, as needed. But we find no indication therein of receiving
into the controlling device data that functions to identify an appliance and then uploading data
identifying a particular appliance from the controlling device which then uploads data to a device
having internet connectivity which device then uploads the data identifying the appliance to an
internet server and then using that server to retrieve control codes from a database.
In short, we agree with appellants, at pages 3-4 of the reply brief, when they state that
Allport fails to disclose or suggest “the desirability of using identity data uploaded from the
controlling device to an internet server to retrieve from an internet database those control codes
to which the appliance so identified to the internet server is adapted to respond.” The examiner
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007