Appeal No. 1998-2554
Application 08/527,334
line 6; p. 5, lines 17-25; p. 6, lines 4-9). By contrast,
frequency division multiplexing is a way of deriving two or
more simultaneous, continuous channels from a propagation
medium by assigning separate portions of the available
frequency spectrum to each of the individual channels. The
channels are separated from each other in frequency and so are
not "mixed" together to form a composite signal. For these
reasons, we find that Oliver does not disclose "mixing" as
recited in claim 11 or a "video mixing device" as recited in
claim 12. The other references to Cooper, Katz, and Brubaker,
do not cure the deficiency in the combination of VanZeeland
and Oliver. Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The
rejections of claims 2-5 and 7-12 are reversed.
Although we have reversed the rejection of independent
claims 11 and 12, we nonetheless address Appellant's argument
(Br6-7) that there is no teaching to combine Oliver with
VanZeeland because VanZeeland discloses (at col. 7,
lines 50-55) that if more than one camera is located on the
remote control device, means must be included to select only
one transmitter/receiver 34 at a time, which teaches away from
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007