Appeal No. 95-1942
Application 08/135,190
customer makes his/her own selection as to which recording
should be prioritized (even if only from a subset of
'Priority' choices)" (Answer at 6). The examiner further
contends (final Office action at 4; Answer at 5) that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to require additional payments (an amount
greater than a predetermined amount) in exchange for
a prioritized selection in view of the teachings of
Rowe and Pioneer of requiring payment, because one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made would have been motivated to
maximize the proceeds from the jukebox.
Although the examiner did not elaborate, we assume he means it
would have been obvious to designate the same recordings as
"priority" selections and as "premium" selections. Appellants
have not addressed this aspect of the examiner's reasoning,
which appears to be reasonable to us. Nor have appellants
explained why claim 17, the broader of claims 7 and 17, does
not read on the foregoing combination of prior art teachings
as follows:
17. A system for playing recordings in a
jukebox [the admitted prior art jukebox as modified
in view of Rowe and Pioneer] comprising the steps
of:
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007