Appeal No. 2001-1764 Page 4
Application No. 08/784,670
and claims 13, 14, and 23 stand or fall with representative claim 39. With this
representation in mind, we address the groups in the following order:
• claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 16, 17, 25, 29, 31-33, and 43
• claims 10-12 and 36
• claims 13, 14, 23, and 39.
I. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 16, 17, 25, 29, 31-33, and 43
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or appellant in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. The examiner asserts, "Reed
teaches system can be implemented [sic] either separately or together using three
heuristics factors as frequency, recency, and previous fails commands (see abstract,
and col.4, line 50-61), ‘This frequency heuristic could also be made dependent on the
time of day...’, (col.5, line 28-30)." (Final Rejection at 2.)1 The appellant argues,
“[s]imply stated, Reed does not disclose menu items arranged based on two or more
heuristic factors within a single menu.” (Appeal Br. at 9.)
1We advise the examiner to copy his rejections into his examiner’s answers
rather than merely referring to a “rejection . . . set forth in the Final Office Action.”
(Examiner’s Answer at 3.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007