Appeal 2007-1775
Application 09/749,106
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that the “price calculations in
Pallakoff are based on aggregate demand, which is not a function of a
number of buyers” (Reply Br. 3). Appellants point to Pallakoff, at column 7,
lines 31-46, where aggregate demand is calculated as the number of balls
purchased by a group of buyers (Reply Br. 3). Appellants further contend
that Pallakoff’s “Buying Team” is not a subscriber group because a buyer in
Pallakoff is different from a “subscriber,” as claimed. Specifically,
Appellants contend that because members of Pallakoff’s “Buying Team”
must (by definition) be purchasers, then it logically follows that Pallakoff’s
members cannot elect to purchase or not purchase, as required by the
language of each independent claim [claims 1, 15, and 22] (Reply Br. 4).
Appellants argue that regardless of whether this language is read in the
alternative or not (e.g., as merely “wherein each subscriber may elect to
purchase . . . ,” the meaning is unchanged, i.e., each subscriber as claimed
has the power to purchase or not purchase (id.).
After carefully considering all of the evidence before us, we begin our
analysis by noting that Bonomi teaches a centrally-managed media delivery
system that delivers program content, such as video-on-demand, to
subscribers (see Bonomi, col. 23, ll. 42-45; see also col. 5, ll. 47-51). We
further note that Bonomi expressly teaches “subscriber accounts” that we
find are “independent,” i.e., one account per customer (col. 2, l. 40; see also
col. 21, l. 67 through col. 22, l. 1). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
Bonomi teaches a subscriber group consisting of a plurality of subscribers
(see CUSTOMER LIST, Fig. 12A) where each customer has an independent
account (see “Account Information” for “Li Liu” shown at the right of Fig.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013