Ex Parte Colson et al - Page 13


                Appeal 2007-0278                                                                              
                Application 10/042,047                                                                        
                      We begin our analysis by noting that the Court of Appeals for the                       
                Federal Circuit has determined “[t]eaching away is irrelevant to                              
                anticipation.” Seachange International, Inc., v. C-Cor, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361,                  
                1380, 75 USPQ2d 1385, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2005), citing Celeritas Tech., Ltd.,                    
                v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522 (Fed.                      
                Cir. 1998); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d                       
                1368, 1378, 58 USPQ2d 1508, 1515 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  Therefore, we find                        
                Appellants’ argument misplaced that Shamoon teaches away from the use of                      
                “a non-URL descriptive portion of a script header” because the Examiner                       
                has rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.  We further find that the weight                 
                of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position that offers are a part of the                
                rules section of the header (e.g., Rule 710) that is separate from the URL                    
                descriptive portion.  See Fig. 7 and ¶ 0102:                                                  

                      [0102] In this case, Rule 710 specifies that a user who agrees to                       
                      pay a certain amount (or provide a certain amount of                                    
                      information) may view Stream 49, but all other users are                                
                      required to view Stream 50, or a combination of Streams 49 and                          
                      50. In this case, Stream 49 may represent a movie or television                         
                      program, while Stream 50 represents advertisements …                                    
                      When the user initially attempts to access the video encoded in                         
                      Stream 49, Rule 710 could put up a message asking if the user                           
                      would prefer to use pay for view mode or advertising mode. If                           
                      the user selects pay for view mode, Rule 710 could store (or                            
                      transmit) the payment information, and pass Cryptographic Key                           
                      712 to Stream Controller 18. Stream Controller 18 could use                             
                      Cryptographic Key 712 to decrypt the first stream until receipt                         
                      of a header indicating that a different key is needed to decrypt                        
                      the following set of packets. Upon request by Stream Controller                         
                      18, Control Block 13 would then check to determine that                                 
                      payment had been made, and then release Cryptographic Key                               

                                                     13                                                       

Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013