Appeal No. 2004-2307
Application No. 09/331,756
Claims 38-41, 44, 47-49, 51, 53, and 56-59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Nemirofsky.
Claims 42 and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Nemirofsky and Seth-Smith.
Claims 43, 45, 46, 52, 54, and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nemirofsky and Harvey.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 20) and the Examiner’s Answer
(Paper No. 25) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No.
24) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Rejections over the prior art
Instant claim 38 requires, inter alia, generating alphanumeric characters and/or
image data separately for plural remote sites at a central site, and transmitting the data
to the remote sites via a digital data communication link. The claim further requires
generating and transmitting command codes within non-displayed portions of broadcast
television signals to remotely control each of the remote sites from the central site.
The statement of the rejection (Answer at 4) points to Figure 2, element 46, and
column 7, lines 35 through 44 of Nemirofsky as corresponding to the transmission of the
data via a digital data communication link. The rejection further points to column 6 of
the reference for a teaching of generating and transmitting command codes within non-
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007