Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742
Patent 5,253,341
1 non-enabling, 2d Koopman Decl. at 199, para. 439, fails to appreciate that the rejection is based
2 on the entire McCalley disclosure and also fails to explain why undue experimentation would
3 have been required to digitize the audio signals.
4 The rejection of claim 99 for obviousness over Pocock in view of McCalley is therefore
5 affirmed.
6 (5) Claim 103 -- obvious over Pocock in view of Kirchner?
7 Claim 103 repeats the preamble and paragraphs (a) to (d) of claim 93 and recites as
8 paragraph (e): "wherein said remote query and data retrieval means is mobile." As noted above,
9 we are interpreting the claim as requiring that the "remote query and data retrieval means" (with
10 or without the other components of the disclosed end user station) be small enough to be
11 conveniently transported.
12 Pocock explains that the transmission facility for transmitting video and background
13 music to the viewers "can be a coaxial or fiber optic cable, a broadcast transmitter, or a
14 microwave channel for distribution to individual receivers, a CATV hub or a satellite for DBS
15 broadcasts." Pocock, col. 6, ll. 36-39. Pocock does not describe the user terminals used for
16 receiving video and background music over any of these media as transportable, let alone
17 conveniently transportable. However, in view of Kirchner's above-noted teachings regarding the
18 desirability of mobility and portability, we are persuaded it would have been obvious to make
19 Pocock's user terminals small enough to permit easy transportation by a user from one location
20 to another, regardless of whether the user terminals are designed for releasable direct connection
- 80 -
Page: Previous 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007