Appeal No. 2002-0349
Application No. 09/442,352
Hornbuckle or Ananda provides a teaching of permitting full use
of data (i.e., software) over a bidirectional telephone
communication network. It is clear to us that in view of all of
these references being concerned with the provision of data
remotely, the artisan would have recognized that the data, or
software, could be equally provided over either broadcast
channels or a telephone communication network in a bidirectional
manner, with the payment of a fee being communicated in one
direction and the provision of the purchased data/software in the
other direction. The artisan would have been led by these
teachings to provide the data (denatured and original) of
Stringer over either a broadcast channel, as disclosed by
Stringer, or a bidirectional telephone communication network, as
suggested by either one of Hornbuckle or Ananda.
Appellant’s alleged “arguments” regarding claims 3, 4, 8,
10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 33 and 38, at page 12 of
the brief, are not arguments at all but, rather, a mere
restatement of what each of these claims recites and a general
allegation that these limitations “are not taught and are not
rendered obvious by the cited art.” As such, since there is no
argument, on the merits, against the rejection of these claims,
as required by 37 CFR 1.192, these claims will fall together with
-9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007