Appeal 2007-0345
Application 09/812,417
In any event, we conclude that Lawler anticipates claims 6, 14, 20,
and 26. Significantly, the claims merely call for the future program action to
be selected from the group consisting of various future program actions,
including recording the selected at least one future program – a feature
disclosed by Lawler as we previously indicated.3 Since Lawler discloses at
least one of the future program actions in the group of future program
actions recited in claims 6, 14, 20, and 26, Lawler anticipates those claims.
Regarding claims 7, 15,4 21, and 27, we note that Lawler teaches that
activating the Record button causes the system to record the show when it
becomes available in the future (col. 14, ll. 43-45). Even assuming, without
deciding, that this teaching requires precisely the same start times for both
the future program action (i.e., recording) and the future program, the scope
and breadth of the claims simply does not preclude the teachings of Lawler.
Significantly, the claims recite that the start and/or stop times of the
future program action not match the start and/or stop times of the future
program (emphasis added). Due to the presence of the two “and/or”
limitations, the claims recite several limitations in the alternative. These
alternative limitations include at least one limitation that is inherent in
Lawler’s ability to record future programs noted above: the start time of the
future program action does not match the stop time of the future program.
Because Lawler discloses at least one of the recited alternative
limitations recited in claims 7, 15, 21, and 27, the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of those claims will be sustained. Moreover, since Appellants have
3 See Page 5, supra, of this opinion.
4 We note that a typographical error exists in line 1 of claim 15 (“claims 14”
[sic]).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013