Appeal No.2004-1526
Application No. 09/354,052
the written word. Accordingly, broadly interpreted, text and
graphics are of different source and type.
Since, in our view, the examiner’ presents a reasonable case
of obviousness, which has not been successfully rebutted by
appellant, we will sustain the rejection of claims 9, 21, and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant’s mere statement that the text
documents and graphics of Vora do not meet the claimed criteria,
without some evidence to support this position, is simply not
persuasive.
Appellant argues, with respect to claims 10, 11, 22, 23, 33,
and 34, that these claims include the limitation of “filtering
search results based upon. . . availability” of either the source
or content. The examiner relied on Etheredge to show that if a
user only wishes to see a listing of information for programs
meeting certain search criteria, appropriate data would pass
through a filtering step 904, so that a particular event based
upon the content sources, e.g., channels 5 and 7 availability,
referring to column 18, lines 53-55, and column 19, lines 3-5, of
Etheredge, would be filtered (see answer-bottom of page 8 to the
top of page 9). The examiner found it obvious to apply
Etheredge’s teachings to Vora “in order to find information
-12-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007