Appeal No. 2005-1705
Application 09/455,956
(g) transmitting the sport data from the sport server to an
output device which has requested the sport data and adapting, by
a filter adapting device, the sport data to a desired format for
the output device.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Wayner 5,557,717 Sep. 17, 1996
Emery et al. (Emery) 5,727,057 Mar. 10, 1998
Lobb et al. (Lobb) 5,810,680 Sep. 22, 1998
Moriarty et al. (Moriarty) 6,062,991 May 16, 2000
(filed Apr. 05, 1996)
Eiba 6,117,013 Sep. 12, 2000
(filed July 25, 1997)
The admitted prior art disclosed by appellant.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-32, 37, 38, 41 and 421 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
teachings of Lobb in view of Moriarty and Eiba. Claims 33 and 34
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the teachings of Lobb in view of Moriarty and Eiba and
further in view of the admitted prior art. Claims 35, 39 and 43
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the teachings of Lobb in view of Moriarty and Eiba and
further in view of Wayner. Claims 36, 40 and 44 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings
1 Although claims 37, 38, 41 and 42 are not listed in the
statement of the rejection in the answer, the explanation of the
rejection in the Final Rejection refers to these claims.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007