Appeal No. 2006-0360
Application No. 10/388,691
combination of those two elements the “client device.” If so, it
would appear, as the examiner alleges, that the instant claimed
subject matter is met. We note that appellants have filed no reply
brief refuting the examiner’s interpretation of Garfinkle.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 25 and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
With regard to claim 27, appellants argue that Garfinkle does
not disclose a system that includes “‘a video content server
configured to transmit the video content to a client device, such
that the video content is transmitted to the client device one or
more times during the rental time period, and the video content is
not transmitted to the client device after the rental time period
has expired.’” (Supplemental brief-page 8).
In explaining why they feel this way, at pages 8-9 of the
supplemental brief, it is clear that appellants are making the same
argument as above, with regard to claim 26, relative to Garfinkle
failing to disclose a server configured to transmit the video
content where the video content is not transmitted to the client
device after the rental time period has expired because all the
control in Garfinkle occurs at the client device end. For the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007