Appeal 2006-3341
Application 10/266,491
The Examiner rejected claims 22 to 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The independent claims under appeal read as follows:
22. A method of displaying information on a monitor of a high definition
television (HDTV), comprising:
receiving at least one TV signal at a receiver circuit including a digital
tuner;
generating on-screen display (OSD) information in the receiver
circuit;
transmitting the OSD information to the HDTV along with a digital
transport stream representing at least the one TV signal;
processing the digital transport stream in the HDTV to extract the
OSD information from the digital transport stream; and
displaying the OSD information on the monitor of the HDTV.
30. A receiver circuit including a digital tuner connectable to a video
monitor, comprising:
means for receiving at least one TV signal;
means for generating on-screen display (OSD) information;
means for transmitting the OSD information to a HDTV along with a
digital transport stream representing at least the one TV signal, the digital
transport stream being processable in the HDTV to extract the OSD
information from the digital transport stream, whereby the OSD information
can be displayed on the monitor of the HDTV.
The prior art presented by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Auld US 5,818,533 Oct. 6, 1998
Van Der Meer US 6,661,467 Dec. 9, 2003
Appellants contends that the claimed subject matter would not have
been obvious over the prior art of record. More specifically, Appellants
contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims over Van Der Meer,
as the reference fails to demonstrate elements of the claims, and the
Examiner improperly took official notice of those elements. (See Br. 2.)
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013