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.) 2Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013