Appeal No. 2002-2040
Application No. 09/160,490
characteristic profile of preferences may then be derived from the
device alone (Rowley’s “registration file” at Column 1, line 27)
and still fall within the scope of claim 5.
Accordingly, we disagree with the appellant’s arguments that
the end-user’s preferences are particular to one unique user of
the equipment and that the end user and end user’s preferences
cannot be derived from the device itself.
The appellant also urges that Rowley fails to teach if a new
application or update is relevant to an end user before presenting
it to the end user. (Appeal Brief, page 6, lines 12-19). We
disagree. Rowley, column 1, lines 35-39 describes a means for
comparing the release file with a registration file to determine
which of the installed applications have upgrades available and
allowing selection of an upgrade. The selection of relevance is
made by comparison to the registration file. Accordingly, we find
this argument unpersuasive as well.
The appellant also states that Rowley neither teaches nor
suggests notifying the end user via the network of the
availability of an option to select a relevant prospective
technical feature for addition to the equipment (Appeal Brief,
page 6, lines 20-22).
This statement is not entirely accurate. Rowley describes a
remote file server having software applications and a release
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007