Appeal No. 1998-1853
Application No. 08/397,292
appellants, brief at page 4 that,
Dworkin does not teach or even suggest the narrowing
of selections of a computer solution based on uses
of the computer solution. Rather, in Dworkin the
user directly specifies a desired type of product or
service such as hardware products, software products
or soft-ware consultants.
Maki also relates to a different invention. Maki relates
to an attribute-based classification and retrieval system.
Maki does not disclose or suggest the claimed means recited
above.
Therefore, the examiner has not made out a prima facie case in
the rejection of claim 1 over Dworkin and Maki. The other
independent claims, 13 and 25, each contain the same
imitations.
Therefore, their rejection based on Dworkin and Maki cannot be
sustained.
Regarding the dependent claims, for example claim 2, the
examiner adds Quentin as further evidence. However, Quentin
does
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007