Appeal No. 96-0125
Application 07/878,100
We note that the examiner has taken the position that any
computer operating under control of a program is rule-based.
Although the disclosure in this application attaches no special
significance to the concept of a rule-based selection of data, it
would be clear to the artisan that a rule-based selection system
cannot refer to the general program under which a computer
operates. Rather, claim 1 refers to the result of its
programming instead of the programming per se. Vela does not use
a rule-based method in delivering messages as asserted by the
examiner.
For all the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8 and 17-25. Since neither
Chain Store nor Schneider makes up for the deficiencies in the
combination of Vela and Humble, we also do not sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 4, 6, 9-16 and 26. Therefore the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
We make the following new ground of rejection using our
authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b). Claim 1 is rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Humble
as cited above. Notwithstanding our decision above that the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007