Appeal 2007-1712
Application 10/696,395
5:3-8). Because Sheppard teaches associating a television with a carrier
frequency and Ellis teaches associating a television with a user, the
Examiner reasons, the combination of Sheppard and Ellis therefore teaches
associating a carrier frequency with a particular user (Answer 23:5-17).
In response, Appellants argue that Ellis discloses an interface that
associates each set-top box device with a particular location (living room,
guest room, children’s room), irrespective of the user or users who may
actually be watching a television at each location (Reply Br. 2:20-23; FF
10). Thus, according to Appellants, Ellis does not teach an association
between television and user, but merely between television and room, and
the asserted combination fails to teach every claim limitation.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s interpretation of
“association” is unreasonably expansive. The Examiner argued that
a particular user watching a particular television is ‘associated with’ … a
particular television. A particular television being watched is ‘associated
with’ … a particular frequency/channel. Therefore, in light of the
specification, a particular user is reasonably construed as being associated
with or having some relationship to a particular ‘channel’ by virtue of
watching a particular television. Answer 22: 3-13.
We agree with Appellants that the combination of Sheppard and Ellis
does not meet the claim limitations. The Examiner directs Appellants to
paragraphs [0064] and [0089]-[0092] of Ellis as allegedly teaching that Ellis
associates a plurality of users within a household with a plurality of
televisions. Paragraph [0064] merely discloses that each item of user
television equipment 44 has a set-top box 48, which periodically receives
program guide data, and which may also periodically provide information
concerning pay-per-view programs ordered (FF 9). Paragraphs [0089] to
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013