Ex Parte Rodriguez et al - Page 2



                   Appeal No. 2006-2028                                                                                           
                   Application No. 09/814,159                                                                                     
                   offer products or services on that network.  See page 17 of appellants’ specification.                         
                   Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below:                                            
                                  1. A method for tracking transactions involving media assets on a data                          
                          network, said data network being serviced by one or more service providers, the                         
                          method comprising:                                                                                      
                                  tracking information, at a media gateway, characterizing a particular                           
                          media asset of interest that is uploaded to the media gateway associated with the                       
                          data network, wherein the media gateway captures a plurality of media assets                            
                          uploaded from a plurality of devices;                                                                   
                                  receiving a request to engage one or more of said service providers to                          
                          perform one or more services for the particular media asset; and                                        
                                  tracking transaction information allowing billing of the requested services,                    
                          wherein the transaction information includes information indicating which of the                        
                          service providers performed a service for the particular media asset.                                   
                                                     THE REFERENCES                                                               
                      The references relied upon by the examiner are:                                                             
                      Ginter et al. (Ginter)  5,892,900   Apr. 6, 1999                                                            
                      Chui et al. (Chui)  6,657,702   Dec. 2, 2003                                                                
                                                                            (filed Nov. 29, 1999)                                 

                                               THE REJECTIONS AT ISSUE                                                            
                          Claims 1 through 4, 6 through 25, and 27 through 43 stand rejected under 35                             
                   U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ginter. The examiner’s rejection is set forth on                       
                   pages 3 and 4 of the answer.  Claims 5 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                          
                   being unpatentable over Ginter in view of Chui. The examiner’s rejection is set forth on                       
                   page 5 of the answer.  Throughout the opinion we make reference to the briefs and the                          
                   answer for the respective details thereof.                                                                     
                                                               OPINION                                                            
                          We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections                               
                   advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner                           
                   as support for the rejections.  We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration,                      
                   in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the                         


                                                                2                                                                 



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007