Appeal 2006-3092
Application 10/601,738
in order for the remote control device to control two devices at any specific
time. We do not find this argument commensurate in scope with
independent claim 1. We find no limitation in independent claim 1 to the
actuation of controls at the same time. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive, and we find no express teaching away in Kurita (Brief 12).
Additionally, we find that the combination of King and Kurita would
have taught the use of the multiple buttons with a single transceiver. We
find that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to additionally use plural transceivers for
simultaneous control of multiple objects at the one time. We find that those
skilled in the art would have appreciated that simultaneous control may be a
desirable feature, but the trade-off would have been the additional cost of the
additional transceivers. We find those tradeoffs and consideration to have
been known to those skilled in the art at the time of the invention and would
have been considered by those skilled in the art in a system design.
Appellants additionally argue that the modification of Kurita as
proposed by King such that at least two modules are electrically connected
at a time to a remote control for controlling plural devices at any time would
defeat the purpose of Kurita since the number of switches of the remote
control would not be minimized and there would be a loss of operator
efficiency in using the remote control (Brief 13). Again, we do not find this
argument to be commensurate in scope with the express language of
independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not find this argument persuasive.
Additionally, we find Appellants’ reliance upon the express teachings of
Kurita relative to the high number of input switches to not be commensurate
in scope with the instant claim language which does not recite more than two
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013