Appeal 2006-3117
Application 09/732,498
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” Id.
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, we have found that
Brown teaches a memory in the user interface to store received data.
(Finding 6). Further, we have found that Travaille teaches that the use of a
flash memory in a broadcast receiver provides the benefit of preserving the
stored content in memory in the event of a power failure. (Finding 9.) We
agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have found it
useful to integrate Travaille’s teachings into Brown’s by substituting the
flash memory for the regular memory in Brown for the purpose of
preserving data upon a loss of power.
Further, we have found that Brown teaches that a combination of
satellite communication and wired communication can be used to transmit
data between the user interface and the headend. (Finding 7.) We have also
found that Leermakers teaches the use of a modem in a portable client to
permit two way communication between the client and the server system in
a satellite communication environment. (Finding 10.) Therefore, the
ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it beneficial to integrate
Leermakers’ modem into Brown’s IRD to enable two way communication
between the headend and the IRD, as specifically suggested by Brown and
Leersmakers. We find in record before us, however, no apparent reason to
support the proposed incorporation of Leermaker’s communication server
into Brown’s system. Neither Brown, Travaille nor Leermarker appears to
suggest the need for using separate servers in a single system, wherein one
server transfers application programs and the other server receives
transaction and navigation data. It is our view that the ordinarily skilled
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013