Appeal 2007-1955
Application 09/841,965
contrary notwithstanding, Peterka would not have to monitor the current
time while the child has access to the access controlled object, i.e., the
television, as claimed.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed limitations
are present in the disclosure of Peterka, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
rejection of independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 3 and 4 not
separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of independent claim 7 based on Peterka, we sustain this rejection
as well. Contrary to Appellants’ argument (Br. 11; Reply Br. 6-7), we find
that the claimed “bus” connection of the plural terminals does not
distinguish over Peterka’s connection of plural terminals (one of which is
terminal 160) through a hub 150 to network cable 145 as illustrated in Figure
1 of Peterka. Similarly, we find that the recitation of “message” generation
by the claimed filter does not distinguish over the data output from Peterka’s
filter (permission code module 140) through the access controller 240 over
the network to control access of applications to receiver 160.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
Appellants’ arguments in response to the obviousness rejection of
appealed independent claim 5 based on the combination of Peterka and
Brown assert a failure by the Examiner to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness since, even if combined, all of the claimed limitations would
not be taught or suggested by the applied prior art references. In particular,
Appellants contend (Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 4-5) that, in contrast to the claimed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013