Ex parte Flynn

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 19, 1998

08076160 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 19, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 14, 1993. According1
to the appellant, the application is a continuation of
Application No. 07/853,579, filed March 18, 1992, now
abandoned.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte EAMONN FLYNN
____________
Appeal No. 95-2102
Application No. 08/076,1601
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before URYNOWICZ, HAIRSTON and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 95-2102
Application No. 08/076,160
The amendment failed to correct the dependency of claim2
22 from canceled claim 2.
2
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 20
through 25. In an Amendment After Final (paper number 8),
claims 20 and 23 were amended.2
The disclosed invention relates to control of the
channels on a television and to control of a rotary antenna
motor with the same signal transmitted from a wireless remote
control channel selector.
Claim 20 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
20. A control unit for controlling a rotary motor driven
antenna for use with a T.V. in which the channels of the T.V.
are selected by signals transmitted by a wireless remote
control channel selector, said control unit having a
microprocessor, said microprocessor having a programmable
random access memory to store in associated relation
information representing the appropriate desired antenna
position for each desired T.V. channel to be selected by each
signal transmitted by the remote control channel selector and
information representing the transmitted signal for which the
desired antenna position has been stored, said control unit
having a receiver to detect the said transmitted channel
selector signals, said receiver being connected through said
microprocessor to access from said random access memory the
information for the appropriate desired antenna position for
the T.V. channel selected by the channel selector signal
detected, a power output circuit for connection to the antenna
motor for rotating the antenna, a read only memory connected
to said microprocessor and programmed to provide instruction
Appeal No. 95-2102
Application No. 08/076,160
3
to said output circuit under control of said microprocessor to
effect antenna rotation in an amount as computed by said
microprocessor to rotate the antenna from an existing position
to the appropriate position for the channel selected as
detected by said control unit receiver and accessed from said
random access memory.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Carney 4,352,202 Sept. 28,
1982
Hornback 4,542,326 Sept. 17,
1985
Burton 4,803,412 Feb. 7,
1989
Claims 20 through 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Hornback or Carey.
Claims 20 through 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hornback in view of Burton.
Reference is made to the final rejection, the briefs and
the answers for the respective positions of the appellant and
the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse all of the rejections.
Hornback discloses an antenna positioning system in which
a channel selector 110 controls a television receiver 105 and
the antenna rotor 120. Hornback does not describe the channel
Appeal No. 95-2102
Application No. 08/076,160
4
selector 110 as a remote unit, and he uses electrical lines
112 to control the television and the antenna rotor (column 7,
lines 9 through 12). Appellant argues (Brief, page 9) that:
[A]ll the connections drawn as straight lines in
Figure 1 of the [Hornback] drawings represent
electrical conductors, including the line 12 [sic,
112] between the channel selector 110 and the
microprocessor 12, and also including the connection
between the channel selector 110 and the television
receiver 105.
Appeal No. 95-2102
Application No. 08/076,160
5
In view of the above, Applicant states that
Hornback does not teach a receiver on the antenna
control unit detecting wireless signals from a
remote control channel selector as recited in
Applicant’s claims.
The examiner acknowledges (Supplemental Answer, page 2)
that “Hornback makes no reference to remote control devices.”
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the channel
selector 110 is a remote control device, it would still lack
“wireless” signals as claimed by appellant. For this reason,
the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 20 through 25 based
upon the teachings of Hornback is reversed.
Carney discloses a remote control unit 10 that controls
both an antenna motor 16, and a television receiver 13.
Although the remote control unit 10 is in wireless
communication with the television receiver 13, the remote
control unit 10 is electrically wired to the motor control
circuitry (Figure 1). Appellant argues (Brief, page 5) that
“wireless” transmission between the remote control unit 10 and
the antenna motor 16 is not possible in Carney because of the
“direct electrical wire connection between the remote and the
ACU [antenna control
Appeal No. 95-2102
Application No. 08/076,160
The attached dictionary definitions of “remote control”3
indicate that control signals may be transmitted to a distant
object via wires, sound, ultrasonics, light, radio or
mechanical means.
6
unit].” We agree. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of3
claims
20 through 25 based upon the teachings of Carney is reversed.
In the obviousness rejection of claims 20 through 25, the
examiner indicates (Answer, page 3) that:
The patent to Hornback discloses an automatic
antenna positioning system comprising a channel
selector 110, a microprocessor 12 and rotor control
120 for controlling the antenna. Hornback differs
from the claims in that the claims recite a wireless
remote control unit. However, the patent to Burton
discloses a programmable electronic antenna rotator
comprising a I.R.XMTR 200. Since the substitution
of wired or wireless remote control is well known in
the art; it would have been obvious to provide
Hornback with the wireless remote control as taught
by Burton.
Appellant and the examiner both agree that Burton’s
antenna is rotated under the control of the wireless remote
control device 200, and that Burton does not disclose
television receiver control with the wireless remote control
device (Reply Brief, pages 2 through 4, and Supplemental
Answer, page 2).
Appeal No. 95-2102
Application No. 08/076,160
7
Burton discloses a wireless remote control device for
controlling the rotation of an antenna, but Hornback discloses
neither a remote control device nor “wireless” communication
of signals. In the absence of evidence in the record that
“the substitution of wired or wireless remote control is well
known in the art” (Answer, page 3), we can not agree with the
examiner that “it would have been obvious to provide Hornback
with the wireless remote control as taught by Burton” (Answer,
page 3). Without the evidence, we would have to resort to
impermissible hindsight to demonstrate the obviousness of the
claimed invention (Reply Brief, page 2). Thus, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 20 through 25 is reversed because
the examiner has failed to present a prima facie case of
obviousness.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 20 through
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, Jr. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
Appeal No. 95-2102
Application No. 08/076,160
8
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-2102
Application No. 08/076,160
9
Douglas S. Johnson
133 Richmond Street West, Suite 301
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5H 2L7
Appeal No. 95-2102
Application No. 08/076,160
10
KWH/jrg
JENINE GILLIS
Appeal No. 95-2102
Serial No. 08/076,160
Judge HAIRSTON
Judge URYNOWICZ

Judge FLEMING
Received: 06 Aug 98
Typed: 08 Aug 98
DECISION: REVERSED

Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation(s)
Panel Change: Yes No
3-Person Conf. Yes No
Heard: Yes No
Remanded: Yes No
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s): ___________

Acts 2: ____
Palm: ____
Mailed: Updated Monthly Disk: ____
Updated Monthly Report:
___