Appeal 2007-0926
Application 09/818,303
Findings with respect to the rejection of claims 26 and 53 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for being obvious over Reimer in view of Menard.
8. Menard presents a television monitoring system that
automatically selects program material of interest to the user.
(Title). The preferences of a user are maintained in a profile,
which preferences are used as a basis for the search of material
in the video program. (Column 5, bottom). The search can
result in the selection of the exact segment of the video program
that the user requested. (Col. 6. l. 30).
9. Menard also teaches that the preliminary profile is presented to
the user for approval, and then provides for user input to recast
the profile of requested terms to more exactly reflect individual
requirements. (Col. 5, bottom to Col. 6, top).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On appeal, Appellants bear the burden of showing that the Examiner
has not established a legally sufficient basis for the rejection of the claims.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730
F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 103 qualify as
prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the
claimed invention. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013