Appeal 2007-0463
Application 09/896,537
attributes having L through N levels of access” is broad enough to read on plurality
of attributes having respective levels of access L through N. Thus, the claim does
not require that each attribute have access levels L through N.
In the Final Action, the Examiner read the recited “L through N levels of
access” on Eyer as follows:
Eyer discloses that the television signals have subscription and
premium services (Col. 1, lines 14-30), which would correspond to
the different levels of access. For example[,] the base level of access
would be your run of the mill basic cable, and the maximum level of
access, which corresponds to N of the claims, would be access to all
channels that the television provider has available. Element M of the
claims would correspond to some point in between, which could be
basic cable plus HBO for example. These levels of access are
represented in the access rights that the terminals receive and
furthermore in the decryption keys that are later generated from those
access rights. Therefore Eyer discloses the “levels of access” as
claimed.
(Final Action 2.) Appellants’ sole argument in response to the rejection is that
[t]he claims of the subject application clearly require receiving
“content comprising a set of attributes having L through N levels of
access” (emphasis added). While Eyer discloses data that may be
divided into a plurality of subgroups, Eyer does not disclose that such
data has attributes which have levels of access as required by the
claimed invention.
(Br. 17.) In the Answer, the Examiner responded by more particularly explaining
that:
Eyer discloses a method of controlling access to video data using
various access rights. This video data contains different types of
video data in the form of premium services such as HBO or special
pay-per-view services, and of course standard channels (Col. 1, lines
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013