Appeal 2007-2220
Application 09/896,231
OPINION
The Anticipation Rejection Based on Rodriguez
We first consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 19, 20, 22-
24, 62-65, 67-69, 72, and 74 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by Rodriguez. Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and
every element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is
capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984);
W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to
be fully met by the disclosure of Rodriguez (Answer 3-4). Regarding
independent claims 1 and 63, Appellants argue that Rodriguez does not
disclose downloading recordable media content as claimed, but rather
discloses a system that provides real-time video on demand. Appellants
emphasize that video on demand enables viewing at the time of access of the
content, but purchasing recordable media content enables viewing at a later
time. According to Appellants, not only does Rodriguez fail to teach
recording video, the real-time video-on-demand content discussed in the
reference is generally not recordable (Br. 5-6, 9-10; Reply Br. 2-3; emphasis
added). Appellants add that Rodriguez also fails to disclose the processor
using reallocated excess on-demand infrastructure capacity as claimed (Br.
6-7, 10-11; Reply Br. 3-4).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013