Appeal No. 2002-1380
Application No. 08/786,270 Page 5
The examiner's position (final rejection, page 2) is that
Thomas uses signature extraction and comparison to determine the
local source of the program. The examiner (id.) relies upon
pages 40 and 41 of Thomas for a teaching of identifying the local
source of a program. The examiner argues that Thomas also refers
to several patents, including Patent No. 4,697,209 for a teaching
of identifying the source and its location. In addition, the
examiner (answer, page 5) refers to the paragraphs bridging pages
33, 34, an 36, 37 for a teaching of using "time stamps and codes
. . . to determine if a program is viewed in real or non-real
time (and therefore the local source.)"
Appellants assert (brief, pages 14-16) that the portions of
pages 40 an 41 of Thomas merely disclose that a program, whether
broadcast or supplied from a tape to a monitored receiver, can be
identified from the output of the monitored receiver and do not
disclose identification of the local source of the program.
Appellants further assert (id.) that in Thomas, a movie displayed
may be from either a tape player or a broadcast source such as a
network station, cable head end, or satellite. Thomas can
identify the movie, but cannot determine whether the movie was
broadcast to the receiver, or was supplied to the monitored
receiver from a tape. Appellants further assert (brief, page 15)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007