Appeal No. 2006-1895
Application 09/834,511
On the other hand, to the extent the examiner is correct that Shah-Nazaroff is
silent as to the disclosing the content availability feature as well as to do so prior to
receiving customer request for content as alleged at the bottom of page 4 of the final
rejection, the examiner’s reliance upon the noted portions in Smith make it clear that the
teachings of Smith would have been an obvious enhancement to the artisan upon the
teachings in Shah-Nazaroff. Noting first that the structure of figure 1 of Shah-Nazaroff is
taught in figures 8 and 9 of that reference, the system controller in figure 8 is shown in
figure 9 to include a cache 904 which dovetails very clearly with the caching and cache
structures 80 and 85 within figure 1 of Smith. Obviously, to actually pre-cache program
content, that is, Internet content, information based on usage of monitoring teachings
would have dovetailed very appropriately within 35 U.S.C. § 103 with the teachings in a
structural sense with those in Shah-Nazaroff and provided a functional enhancement as
well.
Further enhancements to Shah-Nazaroff system are also evidenced as to the
subject matter of independent claim 15 on appeal. Notwithstanding the examiner’s views
with respect to this rejection apparently set forth at the bottom of page 5 of the final
rejection that this reference does not disclose the notion of priority of viewing habits, the
suggestibility of the priority of the type claimed is begun at the top of column 6, line 6 of
Shah-Nazariff where it discusses the content provider having available to it a ranked list
of broadcast content. This is subsequently discussed to the point of stating at column 7,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007