Appeal 2007-0278
Application 10/042,047
rejection of dependent claims 10, 11, 16, and 17 within the Brief, we will
pro forma sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 11, 16, and 17 as
being unpatentable over Shamoon in view of Nicolas.
With respect to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, and
14 as being anticipated by Shamoon, Appellants acknowledge that Shamoon
teaches a system for paying a different price for streaming content (MPEG,
MP3) according to different features of the content. Appellants point out
that such different features include whether an MPEG-4 file includes
advertisements (¶ 0475), or whether a music file has a predetermined fidelity
or quality level (¶ 0358). Appellants note that such content may be either
streamed or sent as a static data structure (¶ 0331). However, Appellants
argue that there is no teaching, expressly or implicitly, of displaying a single
web page in accordance with the option(s) selected by a requester, as
claimed (claim 1). Appellants conclude that a movie MPEG file or an audio
MP3 file is not reasonably equivalent to a “single web page,” as claimed (Br.
8).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues that Shamoon
discloses selection of a priced option to display a single web page with or
without advertisements (¶¶ 0349-0350). As seen in paragraph 0239, the
Examiner argues that the object, or web page, is disclosed to be presented as
a whole in accordance with corresponding rules that govern the web page
object. The Examiner asserts that each object recited in paragraph 0239
refers to the website. The Examiner concludes that disclosures regarding a
MP3 file or streamed file represent alternate embodiments within
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013