Appeal No. 2001-1764 Page 8
Application No. 08/784,670
As mentioned regarding the first group of claims, we found that Reed arranges
its menu items based on heuristics including frequency and recency. “Thus, the
command items in a specific menu might be displayed, for example, . . . in order of
cumulative frequency, most frequent first, for a ‘Frequent’ command item menu (401);
or in order of recency, most recent first, for a ‘Recent’ . . . menu (402).” Col. 4, ll. 54-59.
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 36 and of claims 10-12, which fall therewith.
III. Claims 13, 14, 23, and 39
Admitting that “Reed did not explicitly teaches [sic] the profile information
gathered base on a specific user type,” (Final Rejection at 4), the examiner asserts,
"Smith discloses in one of stream determines [sic] whether the command item matches
a previous entry in a list or directory of the command items, or is new before create new
entry [sic] and the command item is update [sic]. It would have been obvious to have a
profile information base on specific type in order to creates [sic] an entry for stored list
or table of command items and update to current for subsequent usage [sic] (col.3,
line 60-7)." (Id. at 4.) The appellant argues, "Smith may be meaningful to the
Examiner, it is not meaningful to the Appellant. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 8.)
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007