Appeal No. 96-2547
Application 08/101,673
must occur in JVC, the second of which is the association of
the prestored preset data with a source device. This has been
expressed in different words in our discussion between pages
10 and 12 of our original opinion. Thus, we strongly disagree
with appellants' assertion at the bottom of page 3 of the
request for rehearing that appellants' interpretation of the
operation of JVC is the only "plausible" interpretation. Our
view is just as plausible.
Without losing sight of the forest for the trees, it must
be emphasized that we affirmed the examiner's rejection of
claims 1 to 6 in light of appellants' prior art Figure 4 and
its attendant discussion in the specification as filed in view
of JVC. We attempted to emphasize this in the paragraph
bridging pages 7 and 8 of our original opinion. At the top of
page 8 of our original opinion, we indicated that the
combinability of appellants' prior art Figure 4 with JVC
"obviously would have overcome the disadvantages of prior art
Figure 4's circuit noted at the bottom of page 3 of
appellants' specification." What is generally indicated there
is that prior art Figure 4 permitted the user’s selection of a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007