Appeal No. 2002-2012
Application No. 08/953,707
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the examiner’s
rejection and the arguments of appellants and examiner, for the reasons stated infra we
will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 26 through 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue, on page 7 of the brief, that “Torres fails to disclose or suggest
a method for displaying a program along with an electronic program guide (EPG) on the
display as recited in claim 26.”
We are not convinced by this argument. The examiner acknowledges, on page 3
of the final rejection, dated May 7, 2001, and on pages 4 and 6 of the answer, that
Torres does not teach the display of the program and program guide. However, the
examiner has found that the secondary reference, Alten, teaches the feature of an
electronic program guide.
Appellants argue, on pages 7 and 8 of the brief:
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007