Appeal No. 1998-1811
Application No. 08/395,193
we are in agreement with Appellant’s position as stated in the
Brief.
Our interpretation of Lee coincides with that of
Appellant, i.e., while Lee provides for the selecting of
programs of different time slots (e.g. Lee, Table 1), there is
no suggestion of “selecting programs of a single periodic time
slot” (Brief, top of page 7, emphasis in original). In
reaching this conclusion, we are cognizant of the Examiner’s
assertion (Answer, pages 6 and 7) that Lee’s time slots are
inherently periodic since no date information is considered in
the Lee reference. We agree with the Examiner that Lee
provides for no consideration of date information in relation
to the programmed time slots; however, from this factual
situation, we reach the opposite conclusion as to the periodic
nature of Lee’s programmed time slots. While it is proper for
an Examiner to consider, not only the specific teachings of a
reference, but inferences a skilled artisan might draw from
them, it is equally important that the teachings of prior art
references be considered in their entirety. See In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968); W.L. Gore &
Assocs., Inc. V. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550, 220 USPQ
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007