Appeal No. 1998-2541
Application No. 08/608,372
recorded in a delayed recording system as recited in claim 2
is quite different from a clock and a calendar to start
recording at a scheduled time as taught by Logan.
We agree with appellant. The conventional timer
recording of Logan which permits future program material to be
recorded based on time has absolutely no relationship to the
recording of delayed program material as taught by Moe and as
recited in the appealed claims. Therefore, there would be no
basis for applying Logan’s conventional timer recording to
Moe’s system for recording material which has previously been
stored. Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claims 2 and 5 based on the teachings of Moe and Logan.
In summary, the anticipation rejection based on Moe has
been sustained with respect to claims 15-17, 19 and 20, but
has not been sustained with respect to claims 9, 12 and 21.
The obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 5 has not been
sustained. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 15-17 and 19-21 is affirmed-in-
part.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007