Appeal No. 2002-0822
Application No. 09/021,362
the system operators. During the rental period, the program is
available to the viewer. Upon expiration of the rental period,
the selected program is no longer accessible by the viewer.
Therefore, Dunn does not teach determining whether a time period
has been reached, wherein if the time period is not reached,
storing the database search result, and if the time period is
reached, delivering the database search result and the
information to the remote device as recited in Appellant's
claims. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1-15, 18-26, 28-35, 38-46, 48-55 and 58-64 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Dunn.
For the rejections of claims 16, 17, 36, 37, 56, 57, 65 and
66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we note that the Examiner relies on
Dunn for teaching the above claim limitations. Furthermore, upon
our review of Legall and Vaughan, we fail to find that these
references provide the missing pieces. Therefore, for the
reasons above, we will not sustain these rejections as well.
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15, 18-26, 28-35, 38-46, 48-55
and 58-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and we have not sustained the
Examiner's rejections of claims 16, 17, 36, 37, 56, 57, 65 and 66
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007