Appeal 2007-1569
Application 10/089,083
101, 102, etc. The user first requests a schedule of video
programs, Figure 2, which schedule is stored on the user’s PC.
(Column 1, bottom). The user selects from the schedule certain
videos and the time to have them distributed to him. (Column
2, middle). This order is sent to the server, which sends the
selected videos to the user at the requested time. (Column 2,
middle).
3. Notice is taken that the Nakamura network 130 “comprises a
heavy circuit for transmitting data streams from server 120 to
each client end [sic]a thin line for transmitting control
information from each client to server 120.” (Column 1, lines
36 ff).
4. Wiser teaches an on-line music distribution system which
allows users to authenticate themselves by payment of a fee to
receive music files over the Internet. (Column 3, lines 20 to
30).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On appeal, Appellant bears the burden of showing that the Examiner
has not established a legally sufficient basis for the rejection of the claims.
“In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013