Appeal No. 2005-0476
Application No. 08/848,077
Rejection of claim 151, 153 and 155 through 157.
Appellants argue, on page 8 of the brief:
Generally speaking, claim 151 teaches a meta-rule that specifies use of
one rule at a first appliance or class of appliances and a second rule at a
second appliance or class or appliances. Nothing in Hekmatpour even
hints at a control set that specifies that different rules be used at different
appliances or classes of appliances based on the resources present at
those appliances.
In the statement of the rejection, on pages 5 and 6 of the answer:
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention that the disclosure of Hekmatpour ‘686 [citations
omitted] would have been selected in accordance with: “a first rule or
group of rules allowing a first use to be made of the information; a second
rule or group of rules allowing the first use or a second use to be made of
the information; a meta-rule specifying use of the first rule or group at a
first appliance or class of appliances characterized by a first set of
resources and specifying use of the second rule or group at a second
appliance or class of appliances characterized by a second set of
resources, the second set of resources including functionality not present
in the first set of resources …” because such selection would have
provided “means for non-inferential accessing of multimedia displayable
information … responsive to the means for inferential processing of
information and the means for inferential processing of information is itself
responsive to the provided external information.” (See Hekmatpour ‘686
(col. 5, ll. 10-13)).
In response to appellants’ arguments, the examiner states, on page 45 of
the answer, that one of ordinary skill in the art “derives the instant invention
based on the disclosure, as well as all that the prior art reference to Hekmatopur
’686 would have reasonably suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention.”
We disagree with the examiner’s reasoning. We find that Hekmatpour
teaches an expert system, which develops a knowledge base to be used in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007