Appeal No. 2005-0946
Application No. 09/915,448 Page 12
identity of the user without any input from the user him/her
self, the claim requires that it is the interactive device that
has information obtaining means for independently obtaining the
identity of the user. In Gershman, the PDA is already aware of
who the user is, and is measuring the user's biometrics.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of anticipation of claim 47.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Gershman is reversed. As claims 48-64
depend from claim 47, the rejection of claims 48-64 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
Turning to independent claims 65 and 69, we reach, for the
reasons which follow, the opposite conclusion. Notwithstanding
appellants' assertion (brief, page 4) that "[t]he independent
claims of the present claims also set forth means for
independently obtaining the identity of one or more users "
(underlining added), we find that this limitation is not found in
either claim. Appellants have not provided any arguments for
these claims, but rather set forth (brief, page 2) that these
claims stand or fall with claim 47. Thus, as to these claims, we
consider appellants' arguments to the extent that the limitations
argued for claim 47 apply to claims 65 and 69. Based upon our
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007