Appeal No. 2006-2028
Application No. 09/814,159
uploaded from a plurality of devices.” Thus, regardless of which definition is applied to
the term “media gateway” the claim specifically recites the media gateway as capturing
uploads from other devices and that information associated with the upload is tracked at
the media gateway. The examiner’s statement of rejection on page 3 of the answer does
not specifically point out where Ginter teaches a gateway, but rather states that each of
the entities shown in Ginter’s figure 1, may connect to the service provider. Nonetheless
as appellants point out on page 5 of the brief, Ginter teaches using a gateway in his
system of transmitting information, see item 734 of figure 12 and discussion in column
98, lines 45 through 60. We concur with the examiner’s finding that the system of Ginter
broadly teaches tracking information transmitted or received during a user’s session.
However, the examiner has not shown that Ginter teaches or makes obvious a gateway
that captures uploads and also tracks information characterizing a particular media asset
of interest at the media gateway as the particular asset is being uploaded to the gateway.
We note: Ginter teaches in column 97, lines 32 through 35, that the Remote Procedure
Calls (RPC) manager item 732 performs the function of tracking. Further, column 98,
lines 57 through 61, discusses the gateway translating calls between elements of the
rights operating system, not uploads from other devices. Thus, we do not find that the
examiner has carried the burden of proving the obviousness of the method claimed in
independent claim 1.
Claim 22 recites, “a media gateway module for capturing uploading of particular
media asset of interest that is uploaded to the data network, wherein the media gateway
module receives a plurality of media assets uploaded from a plurality of devices;” and “a
module for tracking information at the media gateway, wherein the tracking information
module tracks information characterizing the particular media asset.” Claim 22 is
different in scope from claim 1. Nonetheless claim 22 similarly recites tracking
information at the media gateway and that the media gateway captures uploads from
other devices. Thus, we similarly do not find that the examiner has carried the burden of
establishing the obviousness of the device claimed in independent claim 22.
Claims 2 through 4, 6 through 21 and 41 all ultimately depend upon claim 1 and
claims 23 through 25, 27 through 40, 42 and 43 all ultimately depend upon claim 22.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007