Appeal No. 1998-2542
Application No. 08/266,306
The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the
manner suggested by the examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127
(Fed. Cir. 1984). We can find no suggestion in any of the
applied prior art for connecting a camcorder to an external
broadcast receiver as recited in independent claims 1, 6 and
14. Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 6 and 14 or of claims 2-5, 7-13, 15-19 and 21-23
which depend therefrom.
With respect to claim 20, the examiner additionally
applies the teachings of Levine to teach the conventionality
of infrared signal control. Since Levine does not overcome
the basic deficiencies of the combination of the admitted
prior art and Beyers as discussed above, we also do not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 20 based on the
admitted prior art, Beyers and Levine.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007