Appeal No. 2002-0252
Application No. 08/735,159
Claims 3, 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lanzetta in view of Mankovitz and Henze.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant and the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief.
We reverse.
In rejecting claims 2, 5 and 7 through 10 (answer at pages 3
and 4), the examiner acknowledges that Lanzetta patent fails to
teach a data signal characterized in that the data signal for the
comprised data of a data service and information pertaining to
said data service. However, the examiner points to column 15,
lines 41-53 of Mankovitz for supplying the deficiency of
Lanzetta. In interpreting the meaning of the recited “data
service,” the examiner asserts (answer at pages 6 and 7) that a
data service can be viewed as a broadcasting station where the
data of a data service and the information pertaining to that
data service is simply what Mankovitz stated in column 15, lines
41-53.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007