Appeal 2007-1412
Application 09/822,152
B. Claims 2 and 5 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Lapierre, Goddard, DeStefano
and Cragun.
C. Claims 13 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lapierre, Goddard, DeStefano and
Aras.
D. Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lapierre, Goddard, DeStefano and
Dieterman.
ISSUES
Appellant contends1 that the combination of Lapierre, Goddard, and
DeStefano yields no expectation of success, and would render the prior art
invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. (Br. 7.) More specifically,
Appellant contends the following:
Lapierre expressly teaches away from the use of a rating system, see
column 2, lines 14-21. In contrast, the system of Goddard could not
operate without rating information accompanying the content to
facilitate the censorship determination. The proffered combination of
Lapierre and Goddard is fundamentally incompatible, and thus, there
can be no expectation of success… The purpose of Lapierre is to
screen closed-captioning content so that it may be viewed safely.
Blocking the entire closed-caption data stream, as would result from
the proffered combination of Lapierre in view of Goddard, would
1 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellant submitted in
the Appeal Brief. Arguments that Appellant could have made but chose not
to make in the Brief are deemed to have been waived. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362,
1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013