Appeal 2006-3135
Application 09/802,638
Invention at column 2, lines 44 through 47. The discussion of a smart card
226 in figure 2 occurs at column 7, lines 11 through 14, and the general,
more persuasive teachings at column 10, line 65 through column 11, line 6.
Watson, therefore, builds upon these general billing concepts of
Breslauer. The first sentence of the abstract relates to the ability of users to
be charged by media providers based upon a user’s actual usage or viewing
time. Compelling teachings exist at column 2, lines 51 through 62, to
indicate that all usage of any kind, whether public or private as recited in
dependent claim 11, is capable of being billed. Since Breslauer and Watson
both relate to different levels of understanding of billing usage of media
provided by any media provider, the artisan would have readily concluded
its applicability to the virtual channel environment of Matthews.
Lastly, we turn to the separate rejection of independent claim 12 based
upon Matthews in view Watson, further in view of Linehan. Based upon the
above noted assessment of Watson, it would have been clearly obvious to
the artisan within 35 U. S.C. § 103 to have applied the capability and
desirability of billing all usage of media according to Watson’s teachings in
the virtual channel environment of Matthews. What distinguishes
independent claim 12 over the general recitation of billing information in
independent claim 7 and the private viewing and public viewing capabilities
of its dependent claim 11 is the dual recitation of the “if” clauses at the end
of independent claim 12 to separately bill private viewing versus public
viewing.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013