Appeal No. 2006-1895
Application 09/834,511
line 30 through 32 that “the first broadcast in the list is intended to be the most likely to
be interesting to the viewer.” Again, the portions of Smith relied upon by the examiner
(column 4, line 36 through column 5, line 12 and the significant discussion at column 6,
lines 9 through 19) also dovetails with the already existing teaching in Smith and expands
upon them as well.
Appellants’ remarks in the brief and reply brief as to claim 15 and Smith in the
brief and reply brief do not appear to come to grips with the significant teaching value of
the subject matter argued in independent claim 15 on appeal. Smith does teach to
automatically download Internet content to a viewer based on monitored user activities to
create an historical usage pattern database (topics of interest) based upon these usages to
derive user-defined priority levels of topics of interest for different times of day as
claimed. Based upon the noted teaching value of Smith, the artisan may also have well
appreciated that the subject matter of independent claim 15 on appeal may be taught
substantially by Smith alone anyway.
We turn next to the argued subject matter of independent claim 2 on appeal in the
second stated rejection where the examiner relies upon Smith in view of Lawler within
35 U.S.C. § 103. The claim requires in part the determination of at least one topic of
interest for at least one customer “without the user specifying the topic.” This negative
limitation is apparently argued at the bottom of page 7 of the principal brief on appeal.
Appellants allege that the examiner admits that Smith fails to show the user to specify the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007