Appeal No. 2005-1760
Application 09/316,649
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Welsh 5,374,951 Dec. 20, 1994
Rothmuller 5,635,989 June 3, 1997
Herz et al. (Herz) 5,758,257 May 26, 1998
(filed Nov. 29, 1994)
Williams et al. (Williams) 5,977,964 Nov. 2, 19991
Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 8 and 10 through 25 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herz
in view of Welsh and Williams.
Claims 4 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Herz in view of Welsh, Williams and
Rothmuller.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
For all of the reasons expressed by the appellants, and for
the additional reasons set forth infra, we will reverse the
obviousness rejections of claims 1 through 25.
Appellants argue inter alia (brief, pages 7 through 9) that
the applied references do not use the Internet to transmit viewer
data to a collection center.
Herz uses customer profile data to customize video
programming for the customer (Abstract; column 1, lines 8 through
1 The January 5, 1998 filing date of this patent is after the
December 12, 1997 PCT filing date of the subject application.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007