Appeal 2006-3135
Application 09/802,638
In light of Matthews and Watson, Linehan compels the conclusion of
the obviousness of these alleged distinctions at the end of claim 12 on
appeal. Linehan’s interactive TV environment further enhances the general
teaching of Watson for billing purposes and the Web-based environment of
Matthews in its discussion of so-called electronic commerce at columns 1
and 2 of page 1 of this reference. In fact, Linehan characterizes this
environment as “TV commerce.” Within this environment of usage, it is
clear from the teachings of Linehan that it would have been obvious to
change the billing dynamics as generally set forth by Watson to selectively
redesignate who will bear the cost, who will share or otherwise allocate or
bear the cost among providers and users, which is the essence of the
alternative recitations in the last two clauses of claim 12 on appeal.
Based upon this reordered and slightly expanded upon view of the
teachings of the respective references, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s
complaints in the Brief and Reply Brief of the Examiner’s separately stated
rejections of the independent claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the Examiner rejecting all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013