Appeal No. 2002-1474 Page 17
Application No. 09/002,927
that the data is not displayed in the form received. Liebesny
discloses that the single set of updated data transmitted for
local storage is used for both audio and graphic interpretations
of the information. We find no language in claim 1 that would
preclude the received information from being recorded and played
back audibly in addition to visually, (col. 9, line 47-49).
From all of the above, we find that the prior art
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1 which
has not been sufficiently rebutted by appellants. Accordingly,
the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Turning to claims 2, 4, 5, 10-14, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 27,
the only argument presented by appellants (brief, page 10) is
that “[c]laims 2, 4, 5, 10-14, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 27 contain
limitations that require the receiver to determine the format of
some of the displayed information based on the format of the
received information. As discussed regarding claim 1, the
applied art fails to suggest this feature and these claims are
believed patentable for at least this reason.”
From our review of claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 18, 19, 21, 22, and
27, we find that this limitation does not appear in any of these
claims, notwithstanding appellants' assertion to the contrary.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007