Appeal 2007-0463
Application 09/896,537
14-25 & Col. 4, lines 48-63). . . . In applying the Eyer reference, one
would recognize that video data is divided into channels that are
categorized as standard/premium/pay-per-view channels. . . .
Therefore, each channel of the video data in Eyer would be considered
a section of the content that represents a level of access for the
attributes of the content as described in the [i.e., Appellants’]
specification.
(Answer 4-5.) It is therefore clear that the Examiner is reading the recited “content
comprising a set of attributes having L through N levels of access” collectively on
the standard, premium, and pay-per-view video channels, with the result that the
recited “set of attributes” corresponds to the set of designations of the channels as
standard, premium, or pay-per-view. This position strikes us as a sound one.
Appellants’ above-quoted sole argument from the Brief (at 17) is not responsive to
the rejection, because the argument incorrectly presumes that the Examiner is
reading the recited “content comprising a set of attributes having L through N
levels of access” on the subgroups of data that are used to define the access rights.
Nor have Appellants filed a Reply Brief pointing out any error in the Examiner’s
position.
We are therefore affirming the § 102(b) rejection as to claim 1 and also as to
claims 2, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, and 21, which are not separately argued. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013