Appeal 2007-0278
Application 10/042,047
recite equivalent limitations, we find the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of anticipation for these claims. However, we have sua
sponte set forth new grounds of rejection infra for claims 3, 9, 15, 21, 29,
and 37 pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Claim 22
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 22 as
being anticipated by Shamoon.
Appellants note that Shamoon is cited by the Examiner at paragraph
0454 et seq. and Figs. 2 and 7, for teaching the feature that “the multiple
offers are defined by a non-URL, descriptive portion of a script header to the
web page content.” Appellants further note that Figs. 2 and 7 relate to
control messages for delivery of streamed content (see, e.g., ¶ 0l0l).
Appellants point to Rule 710 that specifies a user who agrees to pay a certain
amount may view a Stream 49, but non-paying users may not (see Shamoon,
¶ 0102). Appellants argue there is no teaching or suggestion of sending
offers to view the content in the non-URL header, as claimed in Claim 22.
Appellants further argue that paragraph 0454 appears to teach away from the
use of a non-URL descriptive portion of a script header, since the cited
paragraph teaches the use of a URL message that references another CMP
message … in keeping with the standard of using URLs to point to streams.
(Br. 10).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues that offers are a part
of the rules section of the header and can be seen in Shamoon’s Fig. 7 as
separate from the URL descriptive portion (Answer 10).
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013