Appeal No. 2003-0664
Application No. 09/314,716
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
12.
Birch discloses (Figure 1) a multiplexer 110 that receives
digital data from sources 101-1 through 101-m and 105-1 through
105-n at different data rates, and multiplexes the digital data
before transmitting it via satellite 160 to receiver site 150.
The examiner acknowledges (answer, page 4) that “Birch does
not specifically disclose a broadcast quality multi-window screen
display at the remote location, the multi-window display
comprising a plurality of different programming in each of [the]
multi-window screens.” The examiner turns to Kohiyama for a
teaching of a multi-window display. According to the examiner
(answer, page 4), “Kohiyama discloses an image-processing device
that displays a plurality of programs on [a] TV screen in [the]
form of multi-windows (Col. 1, lines 10-26).” The examiner
concludes (answer, pages 4 and 5) that “it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to modify Birch by including a broadcast
quality multi-windows screen display at the remote location as
taught by Kohiyama (Col. 4, lines 6-18), in order to provide to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007