Appeal 2007-0278
Application 10/042,047
Claims 3, 9, 15, 21, 29, and 37
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 9, 15, 21, 29,
and 37 as being anticipated by Shamoon.
Appellants note that Shamoon is cited by the Examiner at paragraph
0287 for teaching the limitation of pricing options based on an age of the
web page content. Appellants note that the cited passage of Shamoon
teaches that a user may be charged more for watching more streamed
programming. Specifically, Shamoon discloses: “based on a pre-payment,
the user has the right to watch 12 hours of programming” (Shamoon,
¶ 0287). Appellants argue there is no teaching expressly or implicitly, of
adjusting a fee according to an “age” of the content. Appellants assert that
Shamoon adjusts a charge according to how much content is presented
during 12 hours of programming. In contrast, Appellants argue that
exemplary claim 3 adjusts a charge according to staleness (“age”) of a single
piece of content (Br. 9).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues that age is a period of
existence. The Examiner argues that Shamoon teaches a price option based
on how long the programming exists (e.g., 12 hours) (Answer 10).
We will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 9, 15, 21, 29,
and 37 for essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants. In particular,
we find the Examiner has failed to point to a specific disclosure in Shamoon
where the prices of the options are based on an age of at least a portion of
the single web page content. We agree with Appellants that Shamoon
adjusts a charge according to how much content is presented during 12 hours
of programming. Because dependent claims 3, 9, 15, 21, 29, and 37 each
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013