Appeal No. 2000-2102
Application 08/771,947
abandoned and will not be considered. It is our function as a
court to decide disputed issues, not to create them.”).
In response to the rejection of the claims on appeal (answer
at pages 3-6), appellants argue (brief at pages 6-8) that there
is no motivation to combine the teachings of Takahama and Ellis.
Appellants argue that the Takahama patent is directed to a system
for automatically controlling a video tape recorder, or the like,
to record desired programs; in contrast, the Ellis patent is
directed to a system for recognizing and verifying certain
broadcast segments, particularly commercials. The appellants
conclude (id. at 8) that "in view of the distinctly different
objectives to which the patents [Takahama and Ellis] are
directed, it would not be obvious to apply the teachings of the
Ellis patent to the system of the Takahama patent, since doing so
would defeat the objectives of the Takahama patent." The
examiner responds (answer at page 7) that "appellant submits that
the Ellis patent is directed to recognition of a particular
segment, such as a commercial. In the same field of endeavor,
Takahama et al. also discloses a similar invention that is
applicable to television program detection in order to cancel an
unnecessary commercial program." The examiner concludes (id.)
that "the combination of Takahama et al and Ellis taken as a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007