Appeal 2007-0345
Application 09/812,417
For at least these reasons, Lawler fully meets all limitations of claims
1, 2, 9, 10, 17, 18, 23, and 24. Accordingly, the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of those claims is sustained.
Regarding claims 3, 11, 19, and 25, we note at the outset that the
claims call for the future programs menu to comprise features selected from
the group consisting of (1) a return feature, and (2) a help feature (emphasis
added). That is, only one recited feature – not necessarily both – need be
disclosed in Lawler to anticipate the claims.
With this interpretation, we turn to Lawler. The reference specifically
states that the CPU 58 monitors the user’s menu selection, carries out the
requested action, and returns to the program time guide (Lawler, col. 14, ll.
25-29; Fig. 5A; emphasis added). Although this functionality fully meets
the claimed return feature given the scope and breadth of the limitation, we
add that activating the “Cancel” button also returns the user to the program
time guide – a feature that also fully meets the claimed return feature
(Lawler, col. 14, ll. 45-48).
Furthermore, the information displayed in Figs. 3 and 8 fully meets
the claimed help feature giving the term “help feature” its broadest
reasonable interpretation. In our view, the limitation is fully met by the
user’s ability in Lawler to navigate among the various programs in the
display screen that are categorized by time and channel, and retrieve
additional information about the programs.
For at least these reasons, Lawler fully meets the limitations of claims
3, 11, 19, and 25. Accordingly, the Examiner’s anticipation of those claims
is sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013