Appeal 2007-1712
Application 10/696,395
power of each reference to suggest solutions to one of ordinary skill in the
art, considering the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit
another. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991). If the proposed modification would render the prior art invention
being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no
suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon,
733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because neither Sheppard nor Ellis meet the claim
limitation of “a decoded first video information stream modulated to a first
radio frequency band associated with a first user and a decoded second video
information stream modulated to a second radio frequency band associated
with a second user,” as recited in claim 1; or “a plurality of remote
controllable channel output modules, each configured to output a signal
modulated to an assigned frequency block associated with a particular user,”
as recited in claim 20; or “linking a plurality of users with associated carrier
frequencies,” then “modulating a decoded video stream … on the first
carrier frequency” [which is associated with the first user], as recited in
claim 29 (and almost identically in claim 40).
The Examiner admits that Sheppard does not teach the claimed
association between user(s) and frequency band(s), but asserts that Ellis
teaches a video distribution system wherein a plurality of users are
associated with a plurality of televisions, and the users may configure
settings associated with an interactive program guide (Answer
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013