Appeal No. 96-1343
Application 07/993,225
operation request before the message is displayed, constitutes a
“selection” of the type called for in step (c) of claim 1 within
the broad meaning of the claim terminology. However, we do not
agree with this analysis for the following reasons.
Here, appellants’ method and system provide to the user a
selection of whether the message should be provided to the user
upon future occurrences of the detected message producing action.
That is, appellants’ method and system, in and of themselves,
provide to the user a selection or choice of blocking the
provision of the message in the future. In contrast, Obata’s
method and system merely delay the provision of the message, and
it is only upon the circumstance of an additional action by the
user, i.e., inputting a correct response within a particular
period of time, that the message is not provided. This
difference is highlighted by the examiner’s recognition that in
Obata, the user’s selection is limited to a choice “of sooner
versus later for displaying future messages” (answer, page 5).
Thus, in Obata the message will always be provided unless the
user provides some additional input. In our view, step (c) of
method claim 1 and means (c) of system claim 9 do not encompass
within their metes and bounds this sort of operational scheme.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007