Appeal No. 1997-1011
Application No. 08/250,631
claims of the group are believed to be separately
patentable. Merely pointing out differences in what
the claims cover is not an argument as to why the
claims are separately patentable (underlining added for
emphasis).
Therefore, we will consider the claims according to the following
groups, (1) claims 1 through 10, 14, 15, and 19 through 21,
(2) claims 11 through 13, (3) claims 16 and 17, and (4) claims 18
and 22, with claims 1, 11, 16, and 18 as representative.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 22.
Appellant's sole argument with respect to claim 1 (Reply
Brief, pages 1-2) is that neither Takarada nor Niioka discloses
transmitting icons which display the source information, such as
a network identifier, station call letters, or a program title.
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 3) that it would have been
obvious in view of the teachings of Niioka to use network
identifiers as Takarada's character data.
Takarada discloses (translation, page 4-5) a transmitter
(transmission circuit 2), which transmits communication signals
(character data Vd and video signals Vf), a receiver (antenna
11), stripping circuitry (processing circuit 13, which separates
video signals Vf from the remaining signals V o), and a display
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007