Appeal 2007-1537
Application 09/916,903
interest to a user, it is the presence or absence of “programming” that is
required.
The determination in Elenbaas begins with all channels that contain
programming and then matches those programs to user preferences. From
those portions of Elenbaas referenced by the Examiner and our review of the
teachings of Elenbaas, we find no clear teaching or suggestion of the
determination of the presence or absence of programming to determine a
subset of channels. Nor do we find that Barton remedies this deficiency in
Elenbaas. Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness by showing all the limitations are taught or
fairly suggested in the prior art applied. Therefore, we cannot sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-7. Similarly, we
cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 8, 10, and 16 and their
dependent claims 9, 11-15, and 17 for the same reason.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, we have not sustained the rejection of claims 1-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
KIS
JOSEPH J. LAKS, VICE PRESIDENT
THOMSON LICENSING, L.L.C.
PATENT OPERATIONS
P. O. BOX 5312
PRINCETON, NJ 08543-5312
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013