Appeal 2007-0338
Application 09/870,223
Such a variable, in our view, also provides an entry point to the database.
Moreover, these variables are capable of being read from outside the
compiled code of the application program as claimed.
For at least these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1. Since Appellant has not separately argued the
patentability of dependent claim 2 with particularity, it falls with
independent claim 1. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Regarding independent claim 9, Appellant argues that Osder does not
disclose reading a database record that includes a digitally encoded voice
prompt, wherein the database record is identified by the value assigned to
the variable (Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 8). The Examiner responds that Osder’s
SPIN Application Table assigns the value of the SPIN Application ID
variable which is used to identify the appropriate prompt record (Answer 8).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9. As we indicated
previously, Osder’s assignment table assigns a value to the variable
associated with selecting the appropriate prompt from the American English
Prompt Set 2 (i.e., P1000, P1001, etc.). In our view, the appropriate prompt
from this set fully meets a “database record” giving the term its broadest
reasonable interpretation.
For at least these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 9. Since Appellant has not separately argued the
patentability of dependent claim 10 with particularity, it falls with
independent claim 9.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013