Appeal 2006-3092
Application 10/601,738
Appellants additionally argue that Kurita teaches that it is desirable to
have only one card electrically connected at any one time to a single control
such that the control controls only one device at a time thereby increasing
the operator's efficiency (Reply Brief 3). We disagree with Appellants and
do not find Appellants’ contention commensurate in scope with the instant
claim language. We find that the instant claim language is not limited to any
specific number of switches and that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have had
multiple buttons or switches, that were operable to cause communication by
one of plural transceivers to an assigned object that is assigned to an object
module, that are actuatable at any one time.
Here, Appellants seem to latch onto a problem discussed in Kurita
concerning the operator's remote control efficiency when the operator is
presented with a high number of switches for operation on a single input
menu. Contrary to that, the instant claims merely recite “objects modules”
wherein each object module is assigned to a respective one of the objects.
Here, we find the instant claim language is much more general than the
scope of the specific teachings of Kurita. Additionally, we find it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of
the invention that with only a limited number of input switches or buttons
rather than a large number, to use plural dedicated transceivers with the
plural objects modules which are interchangeable with the base module in
place of the single transceiver taught by King.
Appellant additionally argues that Kurita teaches away from an
arrangement in which two modules (the each having a switch) are
electrically connected at a single time to an individual remote control button
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013