Appeal 2006-3350
Application 10/287,411
causing the portable device to provide the data indicative of the
recording request stored in the memory to an appliance capable of effecting
a recording of the program in response to the portable device establishing
communication with the appliance.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal are:
Huang US 6,437,836 B1 Aug. 20, 2002
Sai US 6,822,661 B2 Nov. 23, 2004
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
being obvious over Huang in view of Sai.
Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter would not have
been obvious. More specifically, Appellants contend that the reference
disclosures cannot properly be combined because the Examiner has failed to
establish an adequate reason to combine. The Examiner contends that it
would have been obvious to incorporate Sai’s teachings of memorizing a
recording command into a method as disclosed by the program recorder of
Huang.
We reverse.
ISSUE
The single issue is whether the Examiner erred in combining the
Huang and the Sai references.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013