Appeal 2007-1955
Application 09/841,965
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) REJECTION
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejection of independent claim
1 based on the teachings of Peterka, the Examiner indicates (Answer 3-5)
how the various limitations are read on the disclosure of Peterka. In
particular, the Examiner directs attention to the receiver terminal 160, access
controller 240, and filter in the form of a permission code module 220 all as
illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 of Peterka.
Appellants’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner has not
shown how each of the claimed features is present in the disclosure of
Peterka so as to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. Appellants’
arguments (Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 2-3) focus on the contention that, in contrast
to the language of claim 1 which requires the evaluation of additional access
rights data that occurs while a user has access to an access controlled object,
Peterka determines access rights conditions before a user has access to an
access controlled object.
Our review of the disclosure of Peterka, however, finds ample
evidence to support the Examiner’s position. In particular, we refer to
Peterka’s discussion of the monitoring of receiver conditions, in particular,
the time-related conditions, beginning at page 21, line 11. In the particular
example given by Peterka, children are permitted to watch television only
within a certain time frame, e.g., between 8 am and 8 pm. It is apparent to
us that in order for Peterka to implement such a time-related condition, the
identification of a user, i.e., a child, must be determined, and the time of day
has to be monitored to enforce the time limitation restriction by withdrawing
the child’s access rights. Further, in order for Peterka to enforce such child
time limitation restriction, we fail to see how, Appellants’ arguments to the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013