Appeal 2007-1569
Application 10/089,083
on closer reading we discover (Finding of Fact #3 above) that there are two
circuits included in the Nakamura network, including a heavy circuit.
However, Nakamura describes the heavy circuit as “transmitting data
streams from server 120 to each client.” (Column 1, lines 36 to 37). In
contrast, claim 1, as well as the other independent claims, requires
transmitting content from the user terminal to the distribution server via a
second network, which is not taught by the prior art.
Appellants’ third argument, that the references taught no motivation to
combine, need not be addressed in this opinion as the first two objections to
the prima facie case are dispositive of the issue. The rejection cannot be
sustained.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and by similar reasoning, claims 2,
3, 5 to 12, and 14 to 27. The rejection of those claims is reversed.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1 to 3, 5 to 12, and 14 to 27 is
reversed.
REVERSED
tdl
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013