Appeal No. 2004-2307
Application No. 09/331,756
ed., vol. 11, at 313 (1992).1 The disclosure thus described an analog, rather than
digital, communication link.2
We acknowledge that, at the time of invention, there may have been devices
referred to as “digital modems,” or other instances of equipment having designations
that included the term “modem,” that may have been useful for digital communication
links. The modem described in the instant specification, however, is simply a “modem” -
- not modified by other terms so as to describe some other piece of equipment.
Moreover, as we have suggested supra, the question of whether it would have
been obvious to use a digital, as opposed to an analog, communication link is not at
issue in the present inquiry. The question of whether appellant may have contemplated
other embodiments, not described, is not at issue in the present inquiry.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 38-59 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103 is reversed. A new
rejection of claims 38-59 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph is set forth herein.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b)
(effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz.
1 A copy of the reference, pages 313 and 314, should mail as an attachment to this decision.
2 To the extent that the disclosure may have conveyed that the relevant data transmission could
be via satellite (e.g., original claim 2), there was no disclosure of, at the least, digital transmission of the
alphanumeric characters and/or image data via satellite in combination with generation and transmission
of command codes within non-displayed portions of broadcast television signals.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007