Appeal No. 2002-2040
Application No. 09/160,490
mass push of upgrades. (Id., page 4, lines 2-9).
The appellant, on the other hand, draws several distinctions
between the cited art and the invention. First, the appellant
urges that Rowley’s computer client is distinct from the end user
of the present invention (Appeal Brief, paper 21, page 5, lines
10-12). Second, the appellant urges that the registration profile
of Rowley is distinct from the profile of preferences to a user of
equipment. (Id., page 5, lines 13-26). Third, the appellant
urges that Rowley neither teaches nor suggests the step of
determining if an update or a new application is relevant to the
end user based on feature and user profiles.(Id., page 6, lines 4-
16). Fourth, the appellant urges that Traversat does not teach or
suggest notifying the end user, as Traversat’s client is a
computer, not a user of equipment. (Id., page 6, last three
lines).
Prior to addressing the merits of the examiner’s rejections,
we consider the scope and meaning of certain terms that appear in
appealed claim 5. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 1460
n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir.
1994). In proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office, unpatented claims must be interpreted by giving words
their broadest reasonable meanings in their ordinary usage, taking
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007