Appeal 2007-0962
Application 09/928,347
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 23. As we
discussed previously, Noll amply discloses providing user access to certain
virtual channels based on the user’s preferences and available bandwidth.
Our previous discussion of Noll applies equally here and we incorporate that
discussion by reference.9 Second, as we noted previously, Hosken utilizes
collected group behaviors along with user information to ultimately
recommend content to the user – a feature that would have been reasonably
combinable with Noll for the reasons previously discussed.10
Lastly, we note that neither claim 22 nor claim 23 recites a “collation
of preferences” – a limitation argued by Appellants on the line bridging
pages 18 and 19 of the Brief. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument in this
regard is simply not commensurate with the claim language. In any event,
we agree with the Examiner that Hosken amply suggests collecting users’
preferences: a teaching reasonably combinable with Noll for the reasons
previously discussed.11 For at least these reasons, the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 22 and 2312 is therefore sustained.
9 See id.
10 See id. at 6-7.
11 See id.
12 We note in passing that an apparent typographical error exists in claim 23.
In line 2, the term “selective” should be changed to “selectively” for clarity.
Because the parties did not raise this issue on appeal, it is not before us. In
an ex parte appeal, the Board is basically a board of review. That is, we
review rejections made by patent examiners. Ex parte Gambogi, 62
USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (B.P.A.I. 2001). Accordingly, we leave resolution of
this issue to the Examiner and the Appellants.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013