Appeal No. 2006-0360
Application No. 10/388,691
Applying Garfinkle to the subject matter of instant claim 26,
Garfinkle clearly discloses “maintaining on a server, video content
that may be served to a client device” because the video programs
are downloaded from a central station, or server (column 1, lines
9-10). Also, it is clear, from Garfinkle, that a request from the
client device to rent video content for a specified rental time
period is received at the server (see column 3, lines 38-39,
wherein a “customer orders the program,” and column 3, lines 28-29,
and 34-35, wherein a “prescribed time period” and “time limit” are
described).
With regard to “transmitting the video content to the client
device one or more times during the rental time period,” clearly,
the downloaded data to the client from the central station is
performed at least once during the rental period, meeting this part
of the claim language. Certainly, a determination is made that the
rental time period has expired, since the time limit is “encoded at
the central station in instructions that accompany the down-loaded
data” (column 3, lines 35-37) and the box 54 in Figure 3 indicates
a decision as to whether the time limit has been reached.
With regard to “refusing to transmit the video content to the
client device because the rental time period has expired,” while
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007