Appeal No. 2006-0360
Application No. 10/388,691
reasons supra, we will sustain the rejection of claims 27, 29, and
30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
With regard to claim 28, dependent from claim 27, the examiner
relies on Russo for the teaching of video content at the client
device viewed for a specified rental period, citing column 5, lines
38-47, of Russo. But the examiner also relies on Russo for an
alternative teaching wherein a video can be stored at the server
(column 4, lines 28-38) and, so, the viewer would inherently have
to continually request downloading the video content until a rental
time period has expired (see page 6 of the answer). The examiner
concluded that it would have been obvious to modify the video
rental on demand system of Garfinkle, using the central storage
located at the cable transmission center for providing te video to
the viewer, as taught by Russo, “for the purpose of providing a
subscriber with a much wider choice of program materials for
enjoyment at the subscriber’s convenience (see Column 3, Lines 1-3)
and alleviating the need for a large storage capacity at the
customer’s site, therefore reducing the cost of the equipment at
the customer’s site” (answer-page 6).
In addition to repeating the same argument used for claim 26,
regarding control by a server rather than a client, appellants also
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007