Appeal No. 2002-0349
Application No. 09/442,352
buy, referring to column 3, lines 55-61, of Stringer (see Paper
No. 4-page 2).
The examiner recognizes that Stringer does not specifically
refer to a system for delivering data to a user terminal over a
telephone communication network utilizing bi-directional
communication, as specified in the instant claims.
The examiner turns to either one of Hornbuckle or Ananda
which teaches such a bi-directional communication system for
delivering data to a user terminal. Hornbuckle and Ananda are
directed to renting computer software.
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to
deliver data using a telephone communications network utilizing
bi-directional communications as taught in [Hornbuckle or Ananda]
for the delivery of the disabled and original versions of the
material disclosed in Stringer in order to allow a user an
opportunity to evaluate software before purchase while providing
a convenient delivery system” (Paper No. 4-pages 3 and 4).
Appellant argues that Stringer discloses no bidirectional
telephone communication network and no user terminals connected
to such a network. While appellant recognizes that Stringer
discloses that his invention may take “advantage of all
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007