Appeal No. 2002-2040
Application No. 09/160,490
into account the written description found in the specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 1989).
The specification sheds illumination on the term
“preferences” as follows:
Preferences may be explicitly supplied by the end-user in
order to be registered at server 120 and/or implicitly
derived from, e.g., a user-profile gradually built-up through
relations with the hardware and/or service provider. User-
preferences relate to, for example, context of use (e.g.
profession, hobbies, home, office, hotel, school, college,
airport, shopping mall), device characteristics, user needs.
(Specification, Page 4, lines 20-24).
It is apparent that the end-user’s “preferences” encompasses
more than user-entered data, including simply device
characteristics such as a hardware profile. Furthermore, these
end user preferences may be device specific, not necessarily user
specific, if they are solely built up by hardware relations and
reflect only device characteristics, as may be the case as stated
in the Specification.
Accordingly, we now turn to the arguments presented for
review.
The appellant’s first two arguments are closely related.
Appellant first urges that the end user is distinct from the
computer, and that Rowley’s registration file, indicating what
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007