Appeal No. 2002-1875
Application 09/245,776
Appellants respond that reading a "user" on a computer is
unreasonable and inconsistent with how one of ordinary skill in
the art would interpret the claim (RBr3-5). Appellants also
respond that even if the computer is the "user," the entity that
"entered" the requests in Cupps is the customer of the web pages,
not the computer (RBr2-3).
We agree with appellants that the examiner's interpretation
of a "user" to be the computer in Cupps is unreasonable. The
"user" is the user of the claimed computer program product and we
hold that it is unreasonable to interpret a "user" be anything
other than a human being. Although we agree with the examiner
that the questions in Cupps (location, type of service, range of
miles for takeout service, col. 9, lines 48-62) are a set of
queries, as broadly recited, they are not "a set of queries for
the user to ask the customer" and the responses are not "entered
by the user," as claimed. Accordingly, the anticipation
rejection of claims 1-8 is reversed.
Taylor
Taylor discusses that computers can perform the functions of
many familiar office devices, but novice users are often confused
when trying to operate office devices through the computer
(col. 1, lines 15-28 & 37-41). Taylor discloses a computer/user
interface for computer hardware resources (col. 1, lines 11-13).
The graphical interface associates, in the mind of a user, a
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007