Appeal 2007-0035
Application 09/924,036
THE REJECTIONS
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Burns and Lumley.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Burns and Lumley, further in view of Omoigui.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Burns and Nagai.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Burns and Nagai, further in view of Omoigui.
DISCUSSION
Claims 1 and 2
The Examiner finds that Burns discloses the invention of claim 1,
including a source of media content including video, audio, and textual
content, but does not disclose a particular source for the media content (Final
Rejection 9). The Examiner finds that Lumley discloses a source of media
content 14 in Figure 1, including video, audio, and textual content, for
distributing various promotional materials to multiple users (id.). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Burns to
include a source of media content, as taught by Lumley, for the benefit of
distributing various promotional materials to multiple users (id.).
Appellants note that the Examiner admits that Burns does not disclose
"a source of media content comprising video, audio and textual content," as
recited in claim 1. It is argued that Burns does not teach the remaining
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013