Appeal No. 2003-0523
Application No. 09/100,952
of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.’”) (quoting In
re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881).
Appellants also contend that displaying the current broadcast program in a
smaller (i.e., PIP) window would not be “maintaining viewing of the given broadcast
program” as claimed. We do not see how claims of the scope presented might be
thought to distinguish over Yuen’s use of a smaller window. We are also unpersuaded
by appellants’ arguments that program guide information is a “prospective” prediction of
broadcast, while the claimed program identification is a “contemporary” identification of
the broadcast. Again, we see nothing in the claims that sets forth the allegedly
distinguishing feature.
Appellants do not rely on the particulars of any claim in the arguments with
respect to patentability over the prior art. Appellants’ Brief, however, purports separate
groupings of the claims, and repeats limitations of the claims at pages 6 through 8. We
do not consider the remarks to rise to the level of arguments for separate patentability,
under the current rules, which were also in effect at the time of appellants’ filing of the
Brief. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (“Merely pointing out differences in what the claims
cover is not an argument as to why the claims are separately patentable.”). See also 37
CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iv) (“For each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the argument shall
specify the errors in the rejection and, if appropriate, the specific limitations in the
rejected claims which are not described in the prior art relied on in the rejection, and
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007