Appeal 2007-0253
Application 09/385,315
Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellant could have made but
chose not to make in the Brief have not been considered (37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
We affirm.
ISSUE
To show that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) (2004), Appellant’s arguments focus on the claimed
limitation related to a processor for infrared to radio frequency conversion
(Br. 9-11). The issue turns on whether the combination of Kobayashi with
Sulavuori teaches or suggests the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the
issue is:
whether the prior art teachings disclose or suggest the claimed
subject matter including a processor coupled to the infrared
transceiver and the Bluetooth transceiver for converting
information format between the infrared transceiver and the
Bluetooth transceiver.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant’s claim 1 requires a processor for the conversion of
information format transmitted between the infrared transceiver and the
Bluetooth transceiver. This conversion is basically an infrared to radio
frequency according to the Bluetooth protocol, which Appellant admits to be
commonly known and used by many manufacturers of communications
devices (Specification 1-2).
Kobayashi discloses an adapter for transmission between infrared and
radio frequency ports in the form of option apparatus 1 (Fig. 2B, p. 12, ll. 9-
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013