Appeal No. 2006-1544
Application 10/024,621
look-up tables establishing a desired correlation between specific
guidance and combinations of profile information and a birth-related
classification, such as astrological horoscope signs, or by
utilizing an artificial intelligence engine in the manner noted
above to correlate the profile information on a subject with a
database containing a plurality of pre-defined beauty advice
records, with the correlation being made based upon past success
with other individuals sharing similar profile information and
astrological horoscope signs. In that regard, we also note that the
examiner has provided no convincing explanation or line of reasoning
as to why making and using a system and method like that described
and claimed by appellants would have required undue experimentation.
See, for example, MPEP § 2164.01 and 2164.01(a) for the factors to
be addressed by the examiner in establishing that there is
sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure
does not satisfy the enablement requirement, which factors do not
appear to have been considered by the examiner.
For the above reasons, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 1 through 69 under 35 U.S.C. 112, first
paragraph, as being based on a non-enabling disclosure.
We next consider the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4
through 6, 9 through 15, 17 through 20, 24 through 27, 29 through
36, 43 through 47, 51 through 53, 56, 59 through 62 and 64 through
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007