Appeal 2007-1094
Application 09/844,976
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2004). The issue turns on
whether there is a legally sufficient justification for combining the
disclosures of Hendricks and Kim. Appellant asserts that the "Examiner is
forming a hindsight reconstruction of the present invention using the
teachings of the prior art " and that "no support, motivation, or incentive is
provided by the two cited references for the combination proposed by the
Examiner." (Br. 5-6). The Examiner asserts the contrary.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant describes a system 10 that distributes electronic content to
users 18 in which a network operations center 12 uplinks electronic content
to a satellite 14 and an over-the-air broadcast center 16 receives electronic
content from the satellite. (Specification 7, paragraphs 0030-0032; Fig. 1).
The over-the-air broadcast center 16 is coupled to a wireless transmitter 60,
which "may comprise a cell tower such as that used in cellular phones, a TV
tower that broadcasts digital signals or a stratospheric platform positioned
above a predetermined metropolitan area for broadcasting over-the-air
signals." (Specification 7, paragraphs 0032-0033; Fig. 1). According to the
Specification, "digital over-the-air content may be incorporated into unused
portions of an analog television broadcast, i.e., the vertical blanking
interval." (Specification 7, paragraph 0033).
Hendricks describes a network controller that manages a television
program delivery network from a cable headend. (Col. 1, ll. 34-36; Fig. 1).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013