Appeal No. 1999-2824
Application 08/481,408
never performs display. The TV receiver 352 does not perform
in whole or in part any VRR video feature function which would
normally be performed by the VRR system, such as freeze frame
or slow motion. Nor is there any teaching in Lett of
generating user controlled VRR video feature control data that
will cause the video device (TV receiver 352) to perform one
VRR video feature function, which limitation is not addressed
in the rejection. The fact that the TV receiver 352 displays
information reproduced by the VCR 350 does not meet the
feature control means claim language, no matter how broadly
the language is interpreted.
We agree with Appellant's treatment (Br5-7) of the
Examiner's reasoning in the final rejection which, in any
case, has not been repeated in the examiner's answer.
The Examiner errs in finding that the TV receiver 352 in
Lett performs at least one VRR video function and, therefore,
has failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation.
The rejection of claims 43 and 44 is reversed.
Obviousness ) claims 45-47
Claims 45 and 46
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007