Appeal No. 2001-1626
Application No. 09/007,622
(video files) to users at the request of the “content consumers,” in the lexicon of instant
claims 1 and 12. Miller is directed, on the other hand, to providing information to
replicated servers at the behest of “content providers.”
In this regard, we note the rejection asserts (Answer at 6) that “substituting
Miller’s scheduler with reception means, determination means and acceptance means
for Greenwood’s scheduler in VDMS would have improved Greenwood’s VDMS ability
to coordinate the transfer of data to the local caches for eventual viewing at the display
stations.” However, the rejection relies on “reception means for receiving a request to
accept delivery” in Miller “wherein the request originates from a requesting content
provider....” (Id. at 5.) Greenwood’s VDMS manages content delivery to users at user
request (e.g., col. 1, ll. 42-60; Fig. 2). We find it unclear, based on these references,
how or why the artisan would have been led to modify Greenwood’s VDMS such that
the VDMS manages video delivery based on the requests of a “content provider” (e.g.,
video library 11). Nor is it clear how or why the artisan would have combined these and
the additional teachings of the references in such a way as to result in the instant
claimed invention.
Instant claim 19 does not contain language specific to “content consumers,” but
sets forth transmission of content to a “plurality of targets.” The rejection of the claim
(set forth at pages 12 and 13 of the Answer) is found to be insufficient for reasons
similar to those we find with respect to claims 1 and 12. The rejection of claim 19
proposes to modify Greenwood’s VDMS on the basis of Miller’s teachings with regard to
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007