Appeal No. 2006-2028
Application No. 09/814,159
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
Appellants argue, on pages 3 and 4 of the brief, that Ginter does not teach the
claimed media gateway. Appellants assert that media gateway as defined in the
specification should be construed as a device that captures wireless and wireline uploads
arriving from various devices and tracks information about the user session. Appellants
state, on page 5 of the brief, “[a]ppellants’ media gateway as described and claimed in the
present application tracks information about the media asset and captures uploads from
various devices”(emphasis original).
The examiner finds, on page 5 of the answer, that the term “gateway” refers to a
device that connects networks using different communications protocols so that
information can be passed from one to the other (citing the Microsoft Press Computer
dictionary). Further, on page 6 of the brief, the examiner finds that Ginter “structurally
and functionally discloses the features ascribed by appellant to his ‘media’ gateway” (the
examiner relies upon Ginter’s disclosure in column 39, lines 4-42 to support this finding).
The examiner also finds that Ginter discloses tracking information about user sessions.
While we concur with the examiner that Ginter discloses a gateway and that the
system tracks information about the user’s sessions, we do not find that the examiner has
carried the burden of establishing that Ginter teaches tracking information at the media
gateway as is claimed in each of independent claims 1 and 22. The examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is the burden of the examiner to
establish why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the prior art, or by the
implications contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989,
995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claim 1 recites “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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007