Appeal No. 97-1273
Application No. 08/269,818
unit of a device for annotating images would have no
comparable purpose in Glick’s invention [brief, page 4]. We
agree with appellants.
Glick’s system is directed to the integration of a
personal computer, an audio/video entertainment circuit and a
telecommunications circuit into a single chassis. The only
remote control in Glick is a remote control [52] for the
audio/video circuit. No description of this remote control is
provided in Glick. The assumption would have to be that the
remote control controls the audio and video operations of the
audio/video circuit in the manner conventionally done by
infrared remote controllers. Glick discloses nothing about
his system that would have suggested any advantages to placing
a voice transducer in the remote control unit. In fact, a
voice transducer in Glick’s remote control unit would serve no
suggested benefit in Glick so that any motivation to integrate
a voice transducer into the remote control unit of Glick comes
entirely from appellants’ own disclosure. The examiner’s
proposed rationale for modifying Glick fails because there is
nothing within the four corners of Glick which suggests the
types of “problems” solved by the modification.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007