Appeal No. 1997-4438
Application No. 08/173,431
elements being manifestly inherent in the
displaying device. As indicated supra, appellant has not
produced any evidence that states otherwise. Appellant
further argues (Brief, page 12) that Hyperbole describes what
the invention is, but not what it does. Again, we find that
appellant’s admission concerning the contents of the Hyperbole
publication places all of the elements of appellant’s claimed
invention in the publication. As a result thereof, the 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 20 based
upon the teachings of the Hyperbole publication is sustained.
In keeping with the foregoing, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)/35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 12 and 13 based upon the
teachings of Hyperbole is sustained.
Turning lastly to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims
14-18, appellant argues (Brief, page 14) that claim 14
“distinguishes the disclosure of Freeman by the requirement
that the switching device be connected to the television
network via a digital database storage device for temporarily
storing the database portions transmitted by the television
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007