Appeal No. 2006-1895
Application 09/834,511
topic of interest since the allegation is continued to be made that the algorithm does so
instead. Since the claim requires the absense of the user specifying the topic, the
teaching value of the automatic monitoring to derive user usage information for caching
purposes meets the limitation of the claim as argued by the examiner.
Appellants’ remarks at the bottom of page 7 of the principal brief on appeal do
not argue against the teachings of Lawler as relied upon by the examiner. The
examiner’s view at the bottom of page 7 of the final rejection that Smith does not teach
the notifying clause of independent claim 2 on appeal appears correct, but the artisan may
well interpret the teaching at figure 4 of Smith with respect to block 234 that once the
user actually accesses the pre-cached information, the customer is notified via the
interactive television regarding Internet content concerning a topic of interest as broadly
recited. To the extent the reference does not actively notify the viewer/user, Lawler
clearly teaches advantageously to do so since the reference teaches many reminders are
available here in this reference to the user shortly before the actual selected program
becomes available.
It is significant to note as well that the examiner’s allegations that Smith is
analogous art to Shah-Nazaroff in the first stated rejection and that Lawler in analogous
art to Smith and the second stated rejection have not been contested by appellants in the
brief and reply brief.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007