Appeal No. 95-1942
Application 08/135,190
Inasmuch as this description appears to be cumulative to the
description of the "Priorities" code in the Rowe reference, we
will limit our discussion to that reference.
The examiner contends that these references "teach
the payment of funds to prioritize a selected recording in a
playlist" (Answer at 4). To the extent the examiner is
arguing that these references teach having the customer decide
whether a selected recording is to be given priority status,
we do not agree. As appellants correctly note in their Brief
(at 8),
"[i]n both Rowe and Pioneer, 'priority' has nothing to do with
the customer -- it is a feature that is programmed in advance
by the jukebox owner. Therefore, we also agree with
appellants that if one were to combine the teachings of Rowe
and Pioneer with the admitted prior art, the result would be a
jukebox in which the jukebox owner can (1) program certain
selections (such as "Happy Birthday") as "priority" selections
which will have play list priority over non-priority
selections and (2) program certain selections (such as the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007