Appeal 2007-2220
Application 09/896,231
In response, the Examiner acknowledges that Rodriguez does not
teach recording video data. The Examiner, however, notes that the claim
merely calls for recordable media content -- content that is fully met by the
video content in Rodriguez which is capable of being recorded. The
Examiner adds that Rodriguez’ adaptive allocation of bandwidth according
to demand fully meets the limitation calling for the reallocation of excess
on-demand infrastructure capacity (Answer 27-28).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. We
agree with the Examiner that the claim language simply does not preclude
the video content purchased by the subscribers in Rodriguez -- content that
is recordable. Even if the video is viewed when it is accessed (i.e., in real
time), the content is nonetheless capable of being recorded. That is all the
claim requires.
Furthermore, we do not agree with Appellants’ assertion that video-
on-demand content is generally not recordable. Not only have Appellants
offered no evidence on this record to support this contention, we see no
reason why the purchased video content in Rodriguez could not be recorded
digitally (i.e., stored in memory). Moreover, we see no reason why the
analog video signal corresponding to such content at the output ports 124 of
the Digital Home Communications Terminal (DHCT) 14 that is destined for
the TV in Figure 3 could not be recorded by a recording device such as a
VCR. In short, the fact that the video content in Rodriguez is intended to be
viewed on demand hardly means that it is not recordable.
We also find that Rodriguez discloses a processor that uses reallocated
excess on-demand infrastructure capacity as claimed. First, we find that
bandwidth fully meets “on-demand infrastructure capacity.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013