Ex Parte WHEELER et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2002-1380                                                        
          Application No. 08/786,270                                 Page 2           




               1.  A system for identifying a local signal source supplying           
          a program signal to a display of a monitored receiver, wherein              
          the local signal source and the monitored receiver are located in           
          a household, and wherein the system comprises:                              
               a program signature extracter arranged to extract a                    
          reference program signature representative of an output of the              
          monitored receiver and to extract a source program signature                
          representative of the program signal supplied by the local signal           
          source, wherein the program signature extracter is located in the           
          household; and,                                                             
               a signal source identifier arranged to identify either one             
          of the local signal source and the monitored receiver as a local            
          source of the program signal supplied to the display in response            
          to the reference program signature and the source program                   
          signature.                                                                  

               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Fisher et al. (Fisher)   5,294,977           March 15, 1994                 
          Mischler                 5,608,445           March  4, 1997                 
          Thomas         (PCT) WO 95/12278             May    4, 1995                 

               Claims 1-13, 15-27, 49-53, 59-61, and 66-711 stand rejected            
          under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Thomas.                    
               Claims 14, 28, 75, and 76 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.               
          § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas.                                 

               1 The examiner omits claims 72 and 73 in the statement of the rejection,
          but specifically refers to claims 72 and 73 in the body of the rejection    
          (final rejection, page 3).  Accordingly, we consider claims 72 and 73 to be 
          included in this rejection.                                                 







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007