Appeal 2007-0230
Application 09/506,676
controlling each of the plurality of outdoor environmental maintenance
equipment, and also can receive responses containing information about
each of the plurality of outdoor environmental maintenance equipment.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gray US 5,568,402 Oct. 22, 1996
Smith US 6,192,282 B1 Feb. 20, 2001
(filed Sep. 30, 1997)
The Examiner rejected claims 21 to 26 and 29 to 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) based upon the teachings of Smith.
The Examiner rejected claims 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Smith and Gray.
Appellant contends that the system described by Smith has a central
controller 13, and that the system lacks “multiple client or user interfaces
that each provide messages for controlling each of the outdoor
environmental maintenance equipment” (Br. 6).
We sustain.
ISSUE
Does Smith describe a plurality of user interfaces that can each
provide messages for controlling each of the plurality of equipment?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant describes a control system in which each of the user
interfaces 16, 36, and 52, for example, can provide messages via messaging
controls 20, 40, and 56, respectively, to control each of the plurality of
equipment 24, 46, 68, and 74 in the system (Figure 1; Specification 8).
Smith describes a system for controlling a myriad of equipment
(Figure 1). A plurality of user interfaces exist throughout the system (col. 9,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013