Appeal No. 2002-1380
Application No. 08/786,270 Page 7
household to determine which of the three devices is the local
source of the program signal supplied to the display of the
monitored receiver 24.
With regard to independent claim 49, appellants assert
(brief, pages 18-20) that claim 49 distinguishes from Thomas for
three reasons. Firstly, Thomas does not disclose comparing the
output of a source receiver to the output of a monitored receiver
in order to determine whether the monitored receiver is the local
source of the program being displayed by the monitored receiver.
Secondly, the devices from which the signatures are extracted
from a monitored receiver are not local to one another because
they are located at different sites. Thirdly, Thomas does not
disclose stepping a source receiver to a second channel if the
output of the source receiver corresponding to a first channel
and the output of the monitored receiver do not match, so that
the output of the source receiver at the second channel can be
compared to the output of the monitored receiver.
With respect to independent claim 59, appellants assert
(brief, pages 20 and 21) that Thomas merely discloses that a
program, whether broadcast or supplied from a tape to the
monitored receiver, can be identified from the output of the
monitored receiver, but that Thomas does not disclose
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007