Appeal No. 2006-3231
Application No. 09/955,691
Appellants argue that Thomas does not teach collecting a media link embedded in a
tuned program to identify a tuned program. (Br. 20). We do not agree with Appellants
since the ancillary codes do identify the tuned program. Therefore, Appellants’ argument
is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent
claims not argued separately.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Appellants argue that Thomas does not identify
the program by accessing a content provider (Br. 20-21). We agree with Appellants that
the fact that an ancillary code can identify a program does not hint or anticipate accessing
a content provider to identify a program based on the media link. Here, we find that the
Examiner goes beyond the express teachings of Thomas with respect to the program
identifier is arranged to identify the program by accessing a content provider. Here, we
do not find that there is accessing a content provider by the detection apparatus. The
Examiner maintains that Thomas at column 11 teaches identifying the content by
accessing the content provider, but we find no such teaching at lines 40-42 of column 11.
Therefore, the Examiner has not established a prima facie of anticipation, and we cannot
sustain the rejection of dependent claim 5.
With respect to dependent claim 6, the Examiner maintains that the ancillary code
provides information to identify the program and therefore provides a “manual
identification” of the program. Appellants argue that the Examiner has not shown that
Thomas teaches a non-automated act in the identification. We find no support cited by
the Examiner for the Examiner’s position, but we do find that Thomas does provide
support for a manual identification using compressed replica and a manual identification
(Thomas, Col. 19, ll. 3-11). We find that this teaching of Thomas supports the
Examiner’s conclusion and is in the material immediately prior to the discussion of
“clustering” and the Lert reference discussed at page 23 of the Brief. Therefore, we find
that Appellants have not been prejudiced by our reliance thereon, and we find that the
Examiner has established a prima facie of anticipation, and we sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 6.
With respect to independent claim 24, Appellants argue that the claim requires a
comparator to generate a subset of reference signatures from a library of reference
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013