Appeal 2007-1712
Application 10/696,395
parental control of content) (FF 4, 5). With those purposes in mind, we find
that it is not a reasonable interpretation of “association” to say that anyone
watching a television is necessarily “associated” with that television,
because Appellants contemplate the ability to send messages meant
specifically for Dad, and to restrict users other than Dad from watching
Dad’s channel. As a result of so finding, we find that neither reference
teaches modulating (at least) first and second video information streams to
respective first and second radio frequency bands respectively associated
with particular users of a video distribution system.
Because Appellants have shown that the Examiner’s proposed
combination of references is impermissible, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10, 20-24, 26-29 and 31-42 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Since no independent claim rejection is affirmed, we
need not reach Appellants’ arguments concerning the dependent claims.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-10, 20-24, 26-29 and 31-42. On the record before us,
Claims 1-10, 20-24, 26-29 and 31-42 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013