Appeal No. 1999-0155
Application 08/369,676
interpretation of the phrase "in response to" in claim 32. We
are of the view that the claimed limitation "tuning to the
second channel to provide a broadcast of the second program on
the screen in response to the movement of the pointer"
requires that the second channel is tuned as the pointer is
moved to the second channel without any additional step of
pressing any other function key on the remote control.
Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the combination of
Florin, Young and Marshall does not satisfy the claimed
limitation.
With respect to the other independent claim, 37, we note
that this is an apparatus claim. It contains a limitation
corresponding to the above limitation. Consequently, the
combination of Florin, Marshall and Young does not meet the
claim limitation "said system responding to the movement of
the pointer to the selected location by tuning the second
channel to provide a broadcast of a second program on the
screen."
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007