Appeal No. 1998-1811
Application No. 08/395,193
303, 311 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
In our view, on consideration of the disclosure of the
operation of Lee’s recording system in its entirety, which is
silent as to any consideration of date information, we agree
with Appellant that Lee’s programmed recording time slots
cannot be periodic. In the example set forth in Table 1 of
Lee, if the programmed time slots were to occur on a periodic
basis, e.g., daily, weekly, etc., the fast forwarding feature
of Lee which advances a tape so that enough space on a tape is
available to record programs of similar type would be
essentially nullified. It is apparent to us that there could
never be a fast forward amount sufficient to allow enough tape
space to record similar type programs that are selected for
recording during periodically occurring time slots.
We have also considered the disclosures of the
Chippendale, Matsumi, and Beaulier references applied by the
Examiner to address the claimed time coding, copy order
coding, and background color captioning features,
respectively. We find nothing in these references related to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007