Appeal 2007-0474
Application 10/692,885
1 We affirm.3
2 ISSUES
3 Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
4 representative claim 1 based on anticipation, and representative claim 30
5 based on obviousness? The two issues specifically turn on:
6 (A) Whether Knutson expressly or inherently discloses a plurality of
7 folders comprising links to particular data files stored in the data storage
8 component, the content of the folders controlled at least in part by end-user
9 specified preferences, the folders include any type of link collection defined
10 by a set of relationships, as set forth in Appellants’ claim 1.
11 (B) Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
12 rejecting representative claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
13 unpatentable over Knutson, Watters and Saxe. This issue turns on whether it
14 would have been obvious to include writing user preferences…, executing
15 user preferences…, and taking action based on a conditionally valid
16 preference.
17
18 FINDINGS OF FACT
19 The following findings of fact (FF) are supported by a preponderance
20 of the evidence.
21 The Invention
22 1. End-users can define conditions and actions that control the
23 content of folders upon the happening of an event. (Specification 5:24-25).
3 Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered
in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013