Appeal No. 2003-2027
Application No. 08/804,908
277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). With
these principles in mind, we commence review of the pertinent
evidence and arguments of Appellants and Examiner.
Rejection of claims 1, 6 and 11 over Hendricks
Appellants argue that Hendricks does not teach a method for
analyzing a bi-directional communication path. Appellants also
argue that Hendricks does not disclose sending an error message
in a forward direction if no message is received in response to a
sign-on message and the power level on the return frequency is
greater than the threshold level. See pages 6 and 7 of the brief
and the reply brief. Appellants further argue that claim 11
includes the additional limitation of receiving a frequency
spectrum, and means for displaying said frequency spectrum in the
remote unit. Appellants argue that Hendricks does not teach this
limitation as well. See page 8 of the brief.
Upon our review of Hendricks, we find that Hendricks
discloses a novel network controller for use with a digital cable
head end capable of monitoring and controlling set top terminals
in a television program delivery system. The invention is able
to identify program choices of subscribers. The invention
processes this data to generate packages of advertisement
targeted towards each set top terminal. See Hendricks, column 3,
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007