Appeal No. 2004-1379
Application No. 09/823,458
Appellants argue that in Amin the system, not the user,
determines what information gets displayed to the user whereas in
Titmuss, the user determines what information gets displayed. As
noted, appellants argue that modifying Amin to filter information
as taught by Titmuss would destroy the purpose of Amin (brief,
pages 6-8).
The examiner responds that the proposed modification
would not destroy the purpose of the Amin system. Specifically,
the examiner notes that the same information would still be
pushed to the portable device with the proposed modification, but
only the information displayed to the user would be affected by
the modification. Thus, the examiner asserts that the proposed
modification would have been made because it would provide more
relevant information to the user (answer, pages 7-8).
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of the claims on
appeal for essentially the reasons argued by the examiner in the
answer. We agree with the examiner that the proposed
modification of Amin would not defeat the purpose of the Amin
device. Titmuss simply suggests filtering data after it has been
downloaded from the source of the data. The amount of
information pushed to the portable device in Amin would be the
same regardless of whether that information is further filtered
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007