Board affirms 102(e) rejection
the Board affirmed the rejection of the examiner under 35 USC 102(e).
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the principal Brief, pages 5-7, Reply Br. 1-4.
Dispositive Issue: Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Arsenault describes in response to storing, in its entirety, in a data storage area,
received programming information, a user device continuously scans the data storage area to remove
therefrom data entries meeting a first criteria, and the user device further partitions the storage area
into a plurality of discrete storage areas, as recited claim 1?
Of a claim element asserted to be missing:
While Arsenault discloses that content records are stored as they are received (col. 7, ll. 15-16),
such disclosure does not preclude the programming information from being stored in its entirety.
That is, we find that the receiver incrementally stores each downloaded content data as it is received
until the entire EPG data is stored in the storage areas of the IRD.