Appeal No. 1999-0155
Application 08/369,676
for example Figure 12 of Florin. However, we do not agree
with the Examiner's position, answer at page 7, that, "the
teaching of Florin, at col. 18, line 61 to col. 19, line 3,
satisfies the claimed limitations. Although the tuning to the
second channel (Florin) is manual, the invention, as broadly
claimed, does not preclude such an interpretation. It is
further noted that the selection of the second channel is
responsive to the moving of a pointer (highlighter)." Thus,
we note that the Examiner admits that an additional (manual)
step of pressing the selection button is required after the
pointer has been pointed to a particular desired program, that
accomplishes the tuning of the channel selected by movement of
the pointer. The Examiner's argument seems to rely on his
interpretation of the phrase "in response to". The Examiner
seems to suggest that since the selection of
the second channel was performed by the movement of the
pointer on the program guide display, any subsequent tuning of
the selected second channel was in response to the movement of
the pointer. However, we do not agree with this
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007