Appeal No. 2006-0360
Application No. 10/388,691
point out that the examiner uses Russo for an alternative teaching
of storing the video content at the server, and that Russo does not
teach or suggest an embodiment in which the server controls whether
or not the video can be downloaded to the client, based on the
rental time period. More specifically, appellants point to the
claimed, “request one or more downloads of the video content after
expiration of the rental time period, resulting in the video
content not being received” as the distinguishing feature of claim
28.
However, the portion of claim 28 alleged by appellants to be
distinguishing over Russo, viz., “request one or more downloads of
the video content after expiration of the rental time period,
resulting in the video content not being received,” has been
indicated by the examiner to have been taught by Garfinkle. For
the reasons supra, with regard to claim 26, we agree that this has
been taught by Garfinkle, either under the interpretation that, in
Garfinkle, there can be requests for downloads after the rental
time period wherein those requests are not honored as, for example,
where a customer’s credit is no good, or under the examiner’s
interpretation that the server in Garfinkle may be considered
everything but elements 18 and 24 in Figure 1. In the latter case,
element 22 will refuse to transmit video content to TV 18 after the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007