Appeal No. 2002-2040
Application No. 09/160,490
applications are currently installed in the memory of a computer
and which need to be updates by a software updating mechanism,
cannot be the profile of preferences of the user (Appeal Brief,
page 4, line 24 – page 5, last line; Reply brief, page 2, lines 3-
7)).
These arguments draw a distinction between the ultimate user
of the equipment, a person, and the equipment itself, by asserting
that the profile of preferences is particular to a user of the
equipment. We agree with this general statement insofar as it
applies to the new computing paradigm - shifting value from
device-centric to functionality-centric (See, e.g., Specification,
page 2, lines 8-11). However, this is an incorrect interpretation
of the claim language.
Claim 5 requires storing a profile of the end-user’s
preferences. Such preferences are broadly defined in the
specification as recited above, and may be derived from the
hardware alone interacting with the network. Limitations are not
to be read into the claims from the specification. In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Thus, claim, broadly interpreted, is open to a situation
where the end user may be a class of persons (e.g. the on-call
attendings in a hospital, the duty nurse, etc.) or devices (all
nursing PDA’s), and not a particular person or device. The
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007