Appeal 2006-3135
Application 09/802,638
set restriction flags upon the accessibility of so-called virtual channels in
Matthews.
The Examiner’s further reliance upon Stinebruner buttresses the
combinability with Matthews and further specifically states, as noted by the
Examiner at column 5, lines 45 through 63, the ability of a parent to set a
flag lock on respective virtual channels according to the table of virtual
channels in figure 2 of Stinebruner. Additional teachings are noted at
column 12, lines 27 through 36.
Therefore, the argued feature at the end of independent claim 1 on
appeal of a restriction flag controlling accessibility as to what is to be
displayed is clearly taught among the collective teachings of the applied
prior art from an artisan’s perspective. Appellant’s arguments at pages 5 and
6 of the principal Brief on appeal fail to address any teaching value of
Breslauer as to this claim. Moreover, it thus appears that there can be no
prohibited hindsight arguments successfully made based upon the above
noted teachings of Breslauer taken with Matthews, further in view of
Stinebruner. Therefore, the rejection of independent claim 1 is sustained.
Next, we turn to the rejection of independent claim 7 and its
respective dependent claim 11. Again, it is first noted that the Examiner
relies upon Matthews in view of Breslauer. The argued feature of contention
between the parties is the feature at the end of independent claim 7 relating
to an access record containing billing information as broadly recited. What
does not appear to be appreciated is that Breslauer already has significant
teachings related to billing or costing displayed media. This is first
discussed at column 1, lines 45 through 48, and the Summary of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013