Appeal No. 1998-1811
Application No. 08/395,193
the art. Uniroyal Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S.
825
(1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories,
Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential
part of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to independent claims 2 and 10, the sole
independent claims on appeal, Appellant’s primary argument in
the Brief centers on the contention that none of the prior art
references discloses the claimed “...selecting a plurality of
programs of a single periodic time slot...” (claim 2) or
“...select programs of the same periodic time slot... (claim
10). After careful review of the applied prior art, in
particular the Lee reference specifically relied upon by the
Examiner as teaching the claimed “periodic time slot” feature,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007