Appeal No. 2006-0360
Application No. 10/388,691
Appellants argue that, unlike the instant invention, where
control of the system is at the server, Garfinkle discloses control
at the customer site. This control at the customer site blocks
access to the already downloaded stored program after it has been
viewed a predetermined number of times, or after a predetermined
interval.
Appellants assert that the difference between a server-
controlled method and a client-controlled method is “significant”
(supplemental brief-page 6).
Appellants argue that since Garfinkle does not describe
controlling access to the requested video data at the server, it
cannot disclose “refusing to transmit the video content to the
client device because the rental time period has expired,” as
recited in claim 26.
Clearly, the methods described in the instant specification
and in Garfinkle are different in that the former is concerned with
controlling the method at the server end of the transmission while
the latter is concerned with control at the client, or customer,
end. The question is whether the claimed subject matter makes a
distinction.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007