Appeal 2007-0580
Application 09/839,000
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 7-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Nobakht.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 15-20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nobakht and Greer.
Claims 5 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nobakht and Greer, further in view of Norsworthy.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nobakht and Norsworthy.
DISCUSSION
Claims 7-14
The limitation at dispute in claim 7 is "a consumer profile being used
to tailor virtual channels."
Appellants argue (Br. 4):
Nobakht et al. nowhere teaches tailoring virtual channels to a
consumer profile as recited in claim 7. Instead, user validity is tested
for access to a virtual channel table but the table itself, and the
channels therein, are not established in accordance with user profiles.
The Examiner reads the consumer profile on Figure 3A, which shows
two user channel tables in an ITV (Answer 10). Parental control codes
allow a parent to restrict the Internet sites that can be accessed by a young
user (col. 5, l. 63 to col. 6, l. 28). Alternatively, the Examiner reads the
channel profile on Figure 5A, which show parental guidance fields to rate
the content of the virtual channels. The user terminal administrator (i.e., a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013