Appeal No. 2006-1895
Application 09/834,511
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer, as expanded upon here,
we sustain the various rejections of all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The arguments presented in the principal brief on appeal are directed only to
independent claims 1 and 15 within the first stated rejection and claim 2 within the
second stated rejection. No arguments are presented before us as to the third and fourth
stated rejections or any other claims on appeal.
Within the first stated rejection, we turn to the subject matter of independent
claim 1 on appeal. The language “as the content regarding topics of interest becomes
available” in the last clause of claim 1 on appeal does not necessarily refer to the
“Internet content” in the first part of this downloading clause and to the “Internet content”
in corresponding language set forth in the last few words of this claim. Notwithstanding
appellants’ repeated arguments beginning at the bottom of page 4 of the principal brief on
appeal, there is no clear statement in claim 1 that it is the Internet content regarding
topics of interest that is downloaded in the subclause “as the content regarding topics of
interest becomes available.” Plainly, the claims distinguish between the usages of the
terms “the Internet content” and “the content regarding topics of interest.”
Therefore, we do not agree with appellants continued inconsistence that in Shah-
Nazaroff the reference does not teach the so-called “as” clause. We find ourselves in
agreement with the examiner’s observations such as at the bottom of page 7 of the answer
that the content in this portion of the claim is the form of the reference’s custom program
listing per se, which appellants’ remarks at the bottom of page 4 of the reference plainly
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007