Appeal 2007-1712
Application 10/696,395
an access engine to authenticate that a user of the remote control
mechanism is associated with the first radio frequency band.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Reyes US 2002/0078442 A1 Jun. 20, 2002
Eames US 6,493,875 B1 Dec. 10, 2002
Milovanovic US 2003/0028872 A1 Feb. 6, 2003
Kolde US 6,762,773 B2 Jul. 13, 2004
Horiwitz US 6,785,901 B1 Aug. 31, 2004
Ellis US 2005/0251827 A1 Nov. 10, 2005
Sheppard US 6,978,474 B1 Dec. 20, 2005
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 20, 22, 24, 26-28, 34, 36 and 40 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Sheppard in view of Ellis.
Claims 3, 5, 37 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Sheppard in view of Ellis and Kolde. Claim 23 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Sheppard in view of Ellis
and Appellants’ admission of fact (APA). Claims 29, 31-33, 39 and 41 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Sheppard in view of
Ellis and Reyes. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Sheppard in view of Ellis and Eames. Claim 35 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Sheppard in view of Ellis
and Milovanovic. Claim 42 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Sheppard in view of Ellis, Reyes and Horiwitz.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because neither Sheppard
nor Ellis teaches associating a video information stream, modulated on a
particular radio frequency band, with a particular user of the video
distribution system. The Examiner contends that Sheppard teaches
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013