Appeal No. 2007-0222
Application No. 09/726,797
determining a content profile including at least one operation and parameter
associated with a given device” are not recited in independent claim 1 on
appeal as well.
From our view of Jamtgaard, it appears to us that this reference is
sufficient in and of itself to teach or suggest to the artisan within 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 the subject matter representative of independent claim 1 on appeal.
Even the Abstract of this invention as well as at least the brief showings in
Figures 1 through 4 convince us that the reformatting of information that is
acknowledged to occur in this reference is sufficient in and of itself to
indicate to the artisan that so-called “conditioning” of data of a given device
as claimed is taught. In contrast to the allegedly new concept of the
disclosed invention of the content conditioning operations of element 32 in
Figure 3, there is no requirement set forth in representative independent
claim 1 on appeal that such an alteration or modification (top of page 7 of
the Brief) is recited. Moreover, even Figure 10 of Jamtgaard further
illustrates the layout engine 42 of Figure 4 where content cutter 72 teaches at
the middle of column 13 of this reference content alterations or
modifications to the extent claimed.
With respect to Robotham, the Examiner relies upon this reference
only for the teaching value of the existence of operations and associated
parameters to embellish upon what the Examiner appears to believe is not
taught in Jamtgaard. This is merely an additional, cumulative teaching in
Robotham, since the artisan would have well appreciated that the approach
of reformatting content in Jamtgaard necessarily would have required
operations and associated parameters that need to be reformatted to tailor a
given information content to a particular series of different types of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013