Appeal No.2004-1526
Application No. 09/354,052
We do note that claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Vora in combination with Contois. The examiner relied
on Contois for the ability to access media types TV, DVD, Web,
Games, and Music, concluding that it would have been obvious to
include various types of media, as taught by Contois, in the
magnetic media or optical media in Vora “for allowing the
information sources includes multiple types of media” (sic)
(answer-page 10).
While appellant argues claim 36, by contending that Contois
does not discuss searching content from a plurality of content
sources of multiple types based on an input search criteria by
searching a local database and at least one remote database
(brief-page 11), we are unpersuaded of nonobviousness since the
examiner relied on Vora, not Contois, for such a teaching.
Appellant also contends that there is no suggestion to
combine the references (brief-page 11). However, the examiner
has given a reason to combine, viz., “for allowing the
information sources includes (sic, to include) multiple types of
media” (answer-page 10), and appellant’s only response is to
refute this with a comment that this is a mere “statement of the
results achieved” (brief-page 11), rather than a suggestion to
combine. Accordingly, since the examiner has presented some
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007