Appeal 2007-0580
Application 09/839,000
parent) may restrict access to cites rated "PG" or "G" or the server may use
the parental guidance codes in conjunction with the user age stored on a
smart card to limit authorized channels (col. 9, ll. 5-29).
Appellants argue that the Examiner's conclusion that "tailoring virtual
channels to a consumer profile is equivalent to restricting consumers from
viewing virtual channels" is not supported (Reply Br. 1). It is also argued
that the Examiner does not contend that Appellants' argument in the Brief is
wrong (Reply Br. 1).
We agree with the Examiner's findings. A "consumer profile being
used to tailor virtual channels" is interpreted to mean that there is
information in a profile that determines which virtual channels a user
receives. Nobakht discloses that a parent can determine which channels can
be viewed by a young user, as noted by the Examiner, which is a profile. In
addition, Nobakht discloses that users can have channel table options. "For
example, user 'JOE JOCK' may subscribe to a premium package that
provides access to sports-based Internet sites. In addition, a young user may
only be authorized to download pre-defined children's sites and/or
educational sites from master channel table 112-a." (Col. 9, l. 65 to col. 10,
l. 2). That is, the channel table type in Figure 5(B) is a consumer profile
used to tailor virtual channels. As to Appellants' argument that the
Examiner did not deny the arguments were wrong, the Examiner's reference
to portions of Nobakht for the consumer profile in response to Appellants'
argument indicates that the Examiner considers the argument to be wrong.
The rejection of claims 7-12 is affirmed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013