Appeal No.2004-1526
Application No. 09/354,052
meeting selected criteria or user’s input efficiency” (answer-
page 9).
Appellant asserts that the claim language refers to the
availability of a device or service, so that if a DVD is
available, but the system does not have a DVD player, the results
would be excluded. Appellant contrasts this with Etheredge which
indicates when, and where, a movie may be broadcast.
While the examiner may point to something in the prior art
which is not what appellant intended to claim, the broad language
of the claims, viz., “searching further includes filtering search
results based upon the content source availability,” would, in
our view, permit the examiner’s broad interpretation and
applicability of Etheredge. Thus, a user accessing a television
programming guide, wherein only data that meets certain filter
criteria will be displayed, appears to meet the instant claim
language, “searching further includes filtering search results
based upon the content source availability,”
Again, since appellant has not convinced us of an error in
the examiner’s reasoning, we will sustain the rejection of claims
10, 11, 22, 23, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
-13-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007