Appeal No. 2006-1895
Application 09/834,511
Lastly, we note in passing that Shah-Nazaroff may also be interpreted by the
artisan as substantially anticipating the subject matter of independent claim 2 on appeal,
including the negative limitation “without the user specifying the topic.” Once the
viewer characteristics are determined in Shah-Nazaroff by the content provider or
otherwise, the reference functions to determine at least one topic of interest and to
actually notify the customer via the interactive television regarding Internet content
concerning the topic of interest without the user specifying the topic. Correspondingly,
the teaching value of Lawler would appear to be directly applicable to independent claim
2 on appeal on its own in a corresponding manner. Once the user program reminder
panel has been set or stored, Lawler functions on its own within the context of
independent claim 2 on appeal without the user specifying a topic. Because the user is
reminded shortly before the selected program becomes available, the teaching value of
Lawler as well is directly pertinent to the clause of independent claim 1 on appeal “as the
content regarding topics of interest becomes available.” Clearly, the user can then choose
to receive the requested content as set forth at the end of claim 1 on appeal.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007