Appeal No. 2006-3231
Application No. 09/955,691
With respect to Appellants’ argument concerning that it is not obvious to use a media
link for program identification, these arguments are not identified with respect to any
specific claims or claim language (Br. 24-28). Therefore, we will address these
arguments as they are relied upon with respect to specific claims and claim language.
With respect to independent claim 10, Appellants reply upon the arguments made
with respect to independent claim 1 and that the media link must be construed to cover
any link that connects a content recipient to additional content and is distinct from an
ancillary code (Br. 30). Here, Appellants also seem to rely upon their argument with
respect to that the content is different than the content of the tuned program. Appellants
contend that Killian does not hint that the embedded URLs or hyperlinks in broadcast
programs would in anyway be useful for identifying the programs in which they are
embedded. (Br. 30). We disagree with Appellants, and find that the URL’s taught by
Killian would have at least narrowed the programs to a specific channel and would have
been useful in this way to identify the program.
We note that the language of independent claim 10 does not specifically identify
what level of identification is required or that the media link is automatically launched.
We find that independent claim 10 merely requires that “when activated” the media link
would initiate a request. We find this equivalent to a recitation of a URL name without
the hyperlink. If a user were to use the datum in a manner to retrieve content, then
content could be retrieved. We find no requirement in independent claim 10 of a
hyperlink as specifically recited in dependent claim 20. Since we find that the URL
narrows the area of the program, it identifies the programs in which it is embedded.
Therefore, we find that the combination would have suggested the claimed invention, and
we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 10 and dependent claims 13-23 and 49
grouped therewith.
Additionally, we find that the language of independent claim 10 does not expressly
support Appellants’ prior arguments at pages 26-27 concerning the “media links to
content other than the broadcast program,” “additional content from the Internet,” “useful
for audience measurement,” and the media link “identifies media different from the
television program.” We find all of these arguments are not commensurate in scope with
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013