Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
Appellant argues that Barritz teaches away from monitoring non-executable files.
(See brief at page 13.) We disagree with appellant as discussed above. Since
appellant has not adequately rebutted the examiner prima facie case of obviousness,
we will sustain the rejection of dependent claims 17 and 26-28 which appellant have
grouped together. (See reply brief at page 3.)
With respect to dependent claims 10, 16, and 25, appellant argues that the
examiner’s combination does not teach or suggest the use of a watch module that
modifies a personal profile in response to access statistics. (See brief at page 13.) We
agree with appellant. While the examiner adds the teachings of Graves to the
combination, we find no teaching of a module to carry out the modifying in response to
the access statistics. The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use statistics in place of
soliciting data from a user to modify a preference profile. While we do not disagree with
the examiner, the examiner has not provided a teaching or suggestion for having a
module or step to carry out the modifying in response to the access statistics. The
language of claim 10 requires more that just modifying a profile and using statistics, the
modification must be in response to the statistics. The examiner has not addressed the
“in response to” portion of the claim limitation. Therefore, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 16, and 25.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007