Appeal 2006-3341
Application 10/266,491
We find the other elements as claimed to be within the teachings of
Van Der Meer when read as detailed in the Examiner’s rejection. The OSD
is generated in elements 103 and 104. Item TS represents the digital
transport stream conveying the video, audio and OSD information to the TV
in Figure 6. The OSD information is extracted and processed in elements
206, 207, 208 and 209 and displayed on element 205.
The limitations of the dependent claims have not been argued.
However we find the limitations in claims 28 and 31 confusing, as in these
claims the transport stream is described as being digital, and yet these claims
indicate that the OSD information is sent in analog form to the TV. We can
only suppose that the claim is to be interpreted to indicate that the OSD
information is created in analog form, and stays in that form only until being
converted to digital MPEG2. Or perhaps these claims are holdovers from
the patented parent of this case which has an analog channel for the OSD
information.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
For guidance, the board relies on the following authorities in this
review.
On appeal, Appellants bear the burden of showing that the Examiner
has not established a legally sufficient basis for a rejection on obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. 103. United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966); In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006);
DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, Co., 464
F.3d 1356, 1360-1361, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013