Appeal No. 2006-3134
Application No. 10/157,603
in the instructions. Sahota teaches that the content harvest and conversion platform can
be software modules [0035] which would have instructions for acquiring content and
providing that content and generated reformatting instructions to the syndication server
which reformats the electronic document and sends the reformatted electronic document
to the set top box. Therefore, we find that Sahota teaches the invention recited in
independent claim 13.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
With all of this said, we find that the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of
anticipation of independent claim 1, but we do find that Sahota teaches the invention as
recited in independent claim 1 and we will delineate this interpretation and application of
Sahota as a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION.
We find that in Sahota, when the content harvest and conversion platform is
interpreted as the “device” and the syndication server is the reformatting processor, and
the set-top box or display is the destination device, then independent claim 1 reads on
Sahota. The content harvest and conversion platform retrieves electronic documents
from various sources and provides them to the syndication server. The content harvest
and conversion platform device from which documents are received and the content
harvest and conversion platform also provides processing instructions. The syndication
server reformats the electronic document when the content harvest and conversion
platform and syndication server are distinct elements [Sahota 0034-0035]. The
syndication server then provides the reformatted electronic document to the set-top
box/display. Therefore, we find that Sahota teaches the invention recited in independent
claim 1. We leave it to the Examiner to further evaluate the propriety of applying the
similar interpretation to the other independent claims.
With respect to independent claim 8, we leave it to the Examiner to consider and
formulate a rejection based on Sahota, if appropriate, since the Examiner has not
formulated a rejection in the answer that addresses the use of a document reference rather
than the electronic document.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007