Ex Parte Covannon et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-0946                                                        
          Application No. 09/915,448                                 Page 2           

          invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 47,              
          which is reproduced as follows:                                             
               47.  A system for controlling the operation of an                      
          interactive device in accordance with a user’s personal profile,            
          comprising:                                                                 
               an interactive device designed to provide self-generating              
          interaction with one or more users, said interactive device                 
          having information obtaining means for independently obtaining              
          the identity of said one or more users and for determining at               
          least one aspect of the local environment in which said                     
          interactive device is located at the time of operation of said              
          interactive device; and                                                     
               a computer for providing instructions to said interactive              
          device for controlling the operation of said interactive device             
          in response to a stored personal profile of said one or more                
          users and said at least one aspect the local environment.                   
               The prior art reference of record relied upon by the                   
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:                               
          Gershman et al. (Gershman)    6,401,085           June 4, 2002              
                    (filed: Mar. 5, 1999)                                             
               Claims 47-72 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as                
          being anticipated by Gershman.                                              
               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by           
          the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,           
          we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed July 13, 2004)           
          for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the                     
          rejections, and to appellants' brief (filed May 10, 2004) and               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007