Appeal 2006-3135
Application 09/802,638
column 4, lines 11 through 14 indicating that the use of IP or internet
protocols strongly suggest to the artisan/reader of Matthews that this
reference is capable of accessing Web sites as a broadcast source. These
teachings are further buttressed by the characterization and illustration of the
virtual channel table 32 from figure 2 in figure 3 and the corresponding
discussion of element 46 as being various executable applications.
If these teachings are not strongly suggestive of the environment of
use including Web pages, Breslauer clearly confirms the applicability of
interactive television systems, such as his, as being inclusive of accessibility
to Web-based information sources. Appellant’s own Specification at page 2
relates teachings of the prior art to Web TV to which Breslauer has assigned
his invention. This is further discussed at column 5, beginning at line 11 as
well. Again, the teaching value of Breslauer at its most basic level includes
the ability to have an interactive television based upon or inclusive of Web
pages. Therefore, in accordance with earlier noted case law, the teachings of
Matthews and Breslauer were easily combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
to independent claims 1, 2, and 7 at a minimum.
As to the access restriction table among independent claims 1, 2, and
7 on appeal, Matthews plainly teaches this capability in figure 2 as element
32 and further shown in figure 3. The teachings at column 4 of Matthews
and illustrations in the discussed figures 2 and 3 clearly convey to the artisan
the ability of the user to designate or otherwise choose by the use of the
keypad 16 any (virtual) channel number to correlate with a so-called
“broadcast” channel. The broad recitation at the end of independent claim 2
on appeal that one such virtual channel number may be a telephone number
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013