Appeal 2006-3092
Application 10/601,738
input switches or buttons. Therefore, we do not find Appellants’ argument
that Kurita would be unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of maximizing
remote control operator efficiency to be persuasive. Since we do not find a
persuasive argument as to an error in the Examiner's prima facie case of
obviousness, we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 1.
Additionally, we will sustain the rejection of independent claims 6
and 11 and the dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10 which Appellants have
elected to group with independent claim 1.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, we have sustained the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10,
and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
pgc
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: September 9, 2013