Appeal No. 1998-0460 Page 13
Application No. 08/480,765
with information regarding the broadcast being received to
permit unscrambling of the video and audio signals thereby
restoring a correct video signal for modulating on a signal
within the pass band of the television receiver by modulator
34.” Col. 10, ll. 21-26.
The absence of a showing of the claimed limitations of
downloading program instructions used to change a control
program executed by a processor negates anticipation.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 12-16, 18, 34-
63, and 68-70 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Because the reference
neither teaches downloading program instructions nor a
downloading program code to change a control program executed
by a processor, we are not persuaded that teachings from the
prior art would appear to have suggested the same claimed
limitations. Therefore, we reverse the rejections of the same
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Next, we address the
obviousness-type double patenting of claims 17 and 19-33.
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting of Claims 17 and 19-33
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007