Appeal No. 2000-1209
Application No. 08/711,180
Nowhere to be found in the body of these claimed [sic, claims]
indicating configuring/setup parameters by the remote terminal.”
In our view, the examiner has missed the argument raised by
appellant. Indeed, in Basu the process of downloading or
communicating the configuring/setup parameters between
client workstation 18 and VMS server 10 is initiated by a signal
which is initiated and transmitted by workstation 18, as opposed to
the recited initial signal sent by embedded controller which
corresponds to VMS server 10 by examiner’s designation. Therefore,
the recited limitation of generating an audio-visual signal by the
computer (controller) system is not met by the combination
suggested by the examiner.
For the rationale above, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1 over Basu in view of Yee. In passing, we note the other
independent claim 10 is a product claim containing the program
recited in claim 1. Therefore, for the same rationale we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 10 over Basu in view Yee.
Consequently, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-3, and 10-12
over Basu and Yee.
With respect to claims 4-9, and 13-18, since Collins does not
cure the deficiency in the combination of Basu and Yee we do not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007