Appeal No. 2006-1534
Application No. 09/829,007
Therefore, we find the appellants’ arguments as to Finkelstein not describing
accumulating a score for at least one indicator based on answers entered by the user to
the questions to be unpersuasive.
The appellants next argue that Finkelstein fails to show correlating the
accumulated score for the same reason that Finkelstein fails to show accumulating a
score. [See Brief at p. 8] We apply the same reasoning as above to this argument,
and find it also unpersuasive for the same reason.
The appellants next argue that Finkelstein fails to inform the user because
Finkelstein informs the physician and not the client. [See Brief at p. 8] This argument
implies that the user is not the physician. We note that Finkelstein explicitly recites that
the results may be sent to the patient or the physician. [See col. 4 lines 41-45]
Therefore, we find the appellants’ argument to be unpersuasive.
As these arguments are all those set forth by the appellants concerning claim 1,
and we find all of them unpersuasive, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and
the claims 4-6, 12-15 and 22 that were grouped with claim 1.
The appellants next argue that, as to claim 6, the trend analysis in Finkelstein is
performed by the computer routines in trendpft 534, which only refer to the medical test
data physically measured by the medical equipment in Finkelstein, and not to subjective
data like that in Finkelstein’s symptom diary. [See Brief at p. 9] We note that
Finkelstein explicitly asks the user whether the user is ready for the measurements in
col. 23-24, and the scores from the test are based on answers entered by the user to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007