Appeal No. 2006-1895 Application 09/834,511 admit that Shah-Nazaroff teaches. Throughout this reference, there’s a continued teaching that the particular program listing and associated ratings provided by individual viewers, such as are provided for “potential subsequent viewers,” comprise the claimed content in this portion of claim 1 on appeal. Appellants’ remarks do not take the position that the claimed topics of interest are not taught in this reference. This so-called “as” clause of claim 1 on appeal is taught or clearly suggested to the artisan at least at columns 4 through 7 of the Shah-Nazaroff patent. We therefore agree with the examiner’s additional observations at page 6 of the answer with respect to the examiner’s interpretations of this subclause. It is worthy of noting that rating information may be sent to a prospective viewer in real time as discussed at the bottom of column 4. Moreover, to the extent that Shah-Nazaroff does not teach actually downloading the content per se, assuming for the sake of argument that the claim may be interpreted as sending the Internet content regarding the topics of interest as they become available and prior to receiving a customer request for the Internet content, the teachings at columns 5 through 7 plainly indicate to the artisan that the user is given the ability to subsequently actually request Internet content related to the rating information received when it becomes next available or in fact the content provider intends to rebroadcast it. As such, the Shah-Nazaroff reference may in fact teach substantially all the subject matter of independent claim 1 on appeal without the additional reliance upon Smith. 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007