Appeal No. 1998-0871
Application No. 08/406,301
VCR by including a tuner within the single device. While claim 1 calls for a switching means, the claim
does not specify how many switches are used. With regard to appellants’ assertion (brief, page 5) that
Lim is an inappropriate reference because it is directed to a camcorder which includes a camera in
contrast to appellants’ VCR-projector which has no camera, we note that the claims do not preclude
the presence of a camera. We are not
persuaded by appellants’ arguments (brief, page 5) that adding a TV tuner to the “portable”
camcorder of Lim would make the camcorder non-portable, and furthermore that the combination
would be impractical (brief, page 6) or that the combination would not be a technological advance
(reply brief, page 2). We do not agree with appellants that adding a tuner to Lim would detract from
the use of the camcorder in its normal operation. In addition, being able to project TV signals in
situations where a TV is not available would be a benefit of Lim’s system (col. 20, lines 64-67). With
respect to appellants’ assertion (reply brief, page 2) that the claims require a tuner that is inherently
integral with the VCR-projector assembly, we agree with the examiner (answer, pages 4-5) that the
claims do not require an integral tuner, and we note that Dunlap teaches the use of a VCR having an
integral tuner (20). With respect to appellants’ argument (reply brief, page 2) that even if a tuner pack
was included in the apparatus of Lim, it would require a jack to connect the tuner with the rest of the
apparatus of Lim; we note that claim 1 recites “without a jack between the projector means and either
of the VCR means or the tuner.” We find that Lim discloses the projector to be an integral part of the
(8)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007