Appeal 2007-0786
Application 10/262,142
Cesta et al., Building Interfaces as Personal Agents, SIGCHI Bulletin, vol. 28, no.
3, 108-113 (July 1996).
T. Small, D. Hennessy, & F. Dawson, RFC 2739, (Jan. 2000)
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2739.html.
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claims 1-5, 7-10,12, 13, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Cesta.
2. Claims 6, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Cesta in view of Applicants’ admitted prior art.
3. Claims 11, 20-23, and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cesta in view of RFC 2739.
4. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Cesta in view of RFC 2739 and further in view of Applicants’ admitted prior
art.
ISSUE
The issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting (1) claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 13, and 16-19 as anticipated by Cesta;
(2) claims 6, 14, and 15 as unpatentable over Cesta in view of Applicants’ admitted
prior art; (3) claims 11, 20-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable over Cesta in view of
RFC 2739; and (4) claim 24 as unpatentable over Cesta in view of RFC 2739 and
further in view of Applicants’ admitted prior art. The dispositive issue is whether
the cited references teach a processor function embedded with a resource as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013