Appeal No. 1998-2542
Application No. 08/266,306
(answer, pages 4-7).
Appellant makes the following arguments: 1) appellant
argues that there is no suggestion in the applied prior art of
having a recording device perform reservation-record
programming using the tuner or receiver of a device which is
separate from the recording device; and 2) appellant argues
that the examiner has provided no motivation for combining the
teachings of Beyers with the admitted prior art to arrive at
the claimed invention, and consequently, has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
We agree with the positions argued by appellant. Beyers
teaches the scheduling of programs for a VCR or a television
receiver, but in either case, the tuner and the computer
controller are located together internally. Beyers provides
no motivation for separating the tuner from the controller.
If Beyers’ circuits were simply incorporated into the
conventional camcorder, the camcorder would have its own tuner
and there would be no external device as recited in the
independent claims. As noted by appellant, however, it was
considered unsatisfactory to include a tuner in a camcorder
because of size and cost constraints. Although the examiner
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007