Appeal 2006-3135
Application 09/802,638
is clearly inclusive within the broad teachings of this reference since even
such a telephone number could be in the form of extension 100, which is
taught within the numerical designations in the table 32 in figure 3. No
patentable significance per se may be attributed to the mere recitation of the
number being a telephone number, a capability which is within the meaning
or intended meaning of the artisan or viewer. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 2, relying upon the combination
of Matthews and Breslauer. Appellant’s positions at page 6 of the principal
Brief recognize that Matthews teaches that a user may customize a channel
number.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 1 upon which the Examiner
additionally relies upon Stinebruner’s teachings to reject this claim. Before
we consider the teaching value of this reference, we note further teachings in
Breslauer which, within the ITV environment of this reference, clearly are
significant teachings of the ability to restrict access and therefore the display
of acquired information on the presentation device or TV 150 in figure 1.
Parental control teachings are first recognized at column 1, lines 60 through
65; the Summary of the Invention at column 2, lines 46 through 51, and the
corresponding showings in figure 3 through 5 relating to conditional access
managers and conditional limit providers which are discussed beginning at
the top of column 4. The ability to control the presentation/display of
information based upon a yes/no answer, that is, a determination to display
or otherwise block information, is also set forth briefly at the top of column
3. Based upon these significant teachings, it appears to us that the artisan
would have well recognized the ability in an ITV environment to otherwise
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013