Appeal No. 2006-3231
Application No. 09/955,691
the express language of independent claim 10. Therefore, the Examiner has not
established a prima facie of obviousness, and we cannot sustain the rejection of
independent claim 10 and claims dependent therefrom not argued separately.
With respect to dependent claims 7, 20, 26, and 48-50, Appellants have elected to
group all the above claims together. Therefore, we select dependent claim 7 as the
representative claim. As discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 and 10,
we find that the URL is only an address which is taught and suggested by Killian. Since
we did not find the argument persuasive with respect to independent claim 10, we do not
find it persuasive here. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive, and we will
sustain the rejection of claim 7 and those claims grouped therewith by Appellants.
With respect to dependent claims 8, 21, and 27, the Examiner maintains that Killian
teaches “other Internet information corresponding to a channel” at column 5, lines 39-40.
We agree that “other information” would have been a code referenced to a URL. We
find no limitation as to the specific structure or format of the code. Therefore, we find a
reasonable basis in the teachings and suggestions of Killian to support the Examiner’s
rejection. Therefore, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the
rejection of claim 8 and the claims grouped therewith by Appellants.
With respect to dependent claim 18, Appellants argue that the program identifier is
arranged to identify the program by activating the media link to initiate the request for
information from the content provider is not taught or suggested by Killian.
[W]hile Killian clearly describes embedding URLs and/or hyperlinks in broadcast
programs, it does not hint that such media links would in any way be useful for
identifying the programs in which they are embedded. As also discussed above,
media links are, by definition, intended to uniquely identify the linked content
(e.g., a referenced web page), not the program within which they are embedded.
[Br. 30-31].
Here, it appears that Appellants may be claiming the automatic use of the media link.
The portion of page 17 of the specification cited to support this limitation in the summary
of the invention of the Brief merely states that “[i]n this case, the media link may be used
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013