Appeal No. 2006-1573 Page 2
Application No. 09/818,175
providing a potential list of second words for the multimedia program to said user,
said potential list of second words selected based, at least in part, on how frequently a
multimedia program whose name includes one of the second words has been played by
the entertainment system.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Beach et al. (Beach) 2003/0014753 Jan. 16. 2003
(effective filing date Dec. 21, 1999)
Ortega et al. (Ortega) 6,564,213 May 13, 2003
(filed Apr. 18, 2000)
Claims 1 through 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ortega in view of Beach.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 30.
We agree with the examiner’s findings (answer, pages 3 and 4) that “Ortega
discloses a method, system, and article of manufacture that detects a first word entered by
a user with a character-entry device (column 3: lines 12-19) and provides a potential list
of second words to the user (Figure 2B),” that the graphical user interface in Ortega has
“text entry boxes and lists of potential words that can be used [to] complete desired
titles,” that the potential list of second words “is advantageously ordered according to the
popularity of the corresponding items,” that “Ortega explains in the abstract and in
column 2: lines 31-35 that the titles can be ordered according to how frequently the items
are accessed or viewed by users,” and “that the titles displayed in the list of potential
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007