Appeal No. 2000-2102
Application 08/771,947
whole would have been obvious...." We agree with the examiner's
rationale for making the combination. Moreover, we find that the
Takahama patent does disclose the need and the means for pattern
matching of the incoming segments of information with the
memorized segments in order to detect the incoming commercials,
for instance. The Ellis patent extends the same method of
recognizing the pattern of the incoming broadcast information
with memorized segments of information. Therefore, we find that
the Ellis patent is suggestive of using a more sophisticated
method and means of pattern matching for the same problem of
pattern matching in the Takahama patent. Therefore, we are of
the opinion that the combination suggested by the examiner of
Takahama and Ellis patent is justified.
Next, appellants argue (brief, pages 8-13) that even if the
teachings of the Takahama patent and the Ellis patent could be
combined the combination would not suggest the claimed subject
matter. Appellants argue the various claims in seven pairs as
below.
1. Claims 21 and 38
Appellants argue (brief at page 9) that "[n]either of the
Takahama nor Ellis patents discloses, nor otherwise suggests, the
concept of modifying memorized information segments on the basis
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007