Appeal No. 2006-1895
Application 09/834,511
transmitting the consumer input to a server; and
downloading the Internet content regarding topics of interest to the interactive
television as the content regarding topics of interest becomes available and prior to
receiving a consumer request for the Internet content.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Lawler et al. (Lawler) 5,699,107 Dec. 16, 1997
Shah-Nazaroff et al. (Shah-Nazaroff) 6,317,881 Nov. 13, 2001
(Filed Nov. 4, 1998)
Smith et al. (Smith) 6,742,033 May 25, 2004
(Filed Jun. 12, 2000)
Claims 1 through 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness as to claims 1, 15, and 18 through 25, the examiner relies upon Shah-
Nazaroff in view of Smith. In a second stated rejection the examiner relies upon Smith
and Lawler as to claims 2 through 4, with the addition of Shah-Nazaroff as to claims 5
through 14 in a third stated rejection. Lastly, in a fourth stated rejection the examiner
relies upon Shah-Nazaroff in view of Smith, further in view of Lawler as to claims 16
and 17.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference is
made to the brief and reply brief for appellants’ positions, and to the final rejection and
answer for the examiner’s positions.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007