Appeal No. 2001-1135
Application 09/002,733
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the arguments of Appellant
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Appellant argues that the claimed invention is a
multipurpose channel banner or basic fields consistent across
multiple sources. See page 5 of Appellant’s brief. In
particular, Appellant points out that the claims must be
interpreted in light of the specification in which the term
“source” has a special meaning in that it provides the channel or
events to the convergence system. Appellant points to the
specification at page 6, lines 10-11. Appellant argues that the
specification provides examples of sources as being a radio-
frequency receiver, a satellite receiver, a digital receiver and
consumer electronic devices such as a videocassette recorder,
digital video disc, laser disc, video camera, or the like.
Appellant points to the specification at page 6, lines 5 through
11.
Appellant points out that the claims recite “wherein the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007