Appeal No. 2005-0476
Application No. 08/848,077
interactive multimedia systems for training, i.e. an expert system that develops
training material. See column 1, lines 1-20. The knowledge base is built up by
interviewing and observing experts about the system for which training is to be
developed, the questions presented to the experts are directed to how they
address problems with the system for which the training is being developed. See
column 10, lines 4- 56. This data is then used to develop a knowledge base,
which is stored in a hierarchical form. See column 14, line 66 through column
15, line 13. We find no disclosure in Hekmatpour which teaches or suggests the
claimed “meta-rule” which specifies the use of a first rule or group at a first
appliance or class of appliances and specifies use of a second rule or group at a
second appliance or class of appliances. Further, we do not find that the
sections of Hekmatpour excerpted by the examiner, provide a suggestion to
modify Hekmatpour to make use of a first, second and meta-rule as claimed.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claim
151 or dependent claims 153, 155 through 157 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Hekmatpour.
The rejection of claims 160, 164, and 169.
Appellants argue on page 13 of the brief:
Claim 160 recites a method of governing usage of information
including a step of “based on the identification [of one or more features of
an appliance], determining whether to use the first rule set or the second
rule set to govern a usage of the governed information.” Appellants
respectfully submit that Hekmatpour does not teach or disclose
determining which rule set to use based on the features of an appliance.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007