Appeal No. 2004-0591
Application No. 09/195,362
1362,1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, we look to the
limitations set forth in independent claim 1. Again, independent claim 1 requires that
“the operation of the at least one external application is based on said at least one rule
and said at least one external application is capable of modifying said at least one rule.”
The examiner again relies on the teachings of Du with respect to the external
application modifying the at least one rule which we found lacking above. Similarly, we
find a teaching thereof lacking here, and the examiner has not identified any teaching in
Chatterjee which remedies the noted deficiency. Therefore, we cannot sustain the
rejection of independent claims 1 and 21, and dependent claims 2-10, 12-20 and 37-40.
Similarly, we do not find that the teaching of Huckins remedies the deficiency
noted above. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of dependent claim 11.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007