Appeal 2007-0253
Application 09/385,315
for processing the signals between the infrared and the radio frequency
transceivers (Answer 10-11). We also note that the particular claimed
conversion technique and the radio interface that relates to the Bluetooth
technology merely relate to the conversion format, which is disclosed by
Sulavuori and Haartsen.
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments focusing on each reference
individually for lack of teachings related to the claimed processor, we find
that the Examiner has properly based the rejection on the combination of the
teachings of the prior art references. In that regard, Kobayashi discloses the
processor for infrared to radio frequency conversion while Sulavuori and
Haartsen provide the specific techniques and format for such conversion.
We also find that the Examiner has properly used the suggestions by the
references for facilitating communication between different devices
(Kobayashi, p. 8) and the need for universal and low power interface
(Sulavuori, col. 2, ll. 32-48; Haartsen, col. 4, ll. 11-15) as the basis for
suggesting the combination.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kobayashi, Sulavuori and
Haartsen outlined supra, and to the extent claimed, we agree with the
Examiner’s position that the claimed processor coupled to the infrared
transceiver and the Bluetooth transceiver for converting information format
between the infrared transceiver and the Bluetooth transceiver is suggested
by the prior art.
Appellant makes separate arguments related to claims 7-14, 16, 17,
and 22 (Br. 12-13) and for claims 3 and 12 (Br. 14). However, Appellant
relies on similar arguments discussed above and fails to point to any error in
the Examiner’s position with sufficient particularity. Accordingly, we
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013