Appeal No. 1999-0478 Page 8
Application No. 08/534,106
payment of a prescribed fee.” (Spec. at 4.) Similarly, a
problem that Edwards solves also relates to supplying selected
programming only to paying customers. Specifically, ”pay-per-
view service
communications are utilized at service denial apparatus for
periodically permitting and denying service to subscribers in
a subscription television system.” Col. 4, ll. 59-63.
Because both the appellant's and Edwards’ inventions solve the
problem of supplying selected programming only to paying
customers, the reference is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Under
either criterion, Edwards is analogous art.
Second, the appellant argues, “even if Kondo and Edwards
were in analogous arts, there is no motivation to combine
their teachings as the Examiner has proposed found outside the
Applicant's disclosure.” (Appeal Br. at 9.)
The examiner fails to identify a persuasive suggestion to
combine the teachings of the references. “[I]dentification in
the prior art of each individual part claimed is insufficient
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007