Appeal No. 2006-1534
Application No. 09/829,007
the questions. Therefore, we find the appellants’ argument to be unpersuasive and
sustain the rejection of claim 6.
The appellants next argue that, as to claim 7, Finkelstein fails to show informing
the user. [See Brief at p. 9] As we noted above, 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 and sustain the rejection of
claim 7.
The appellants next argue that, as to claim 8, Finkelstein fails to show allowing
the user to adjust an indicator by at least one level. [See Brief at p. 10] We note that
Finkelstein allows the user to repeat the test and reenter data which would inherently
change the level, and thus allow an increase in the level, at col. 4 lines 35-51. Further,
in each of the routines in columns 51-72, Finkelstein asks the user to confirm each
answer and allows adjustment if unconfirmed. Therefore, we find the appellants’
argument to be unpersuasive and sustain the rejection of claim 8.
The appellants next argue that, as to claims, 16-18, 20, 21 and 23-28, Finkelstein
does not teach “accumulating a score for at least one indicator based upon the received
answer.” [See Brief at p. 11] As we noted above, Finkelstein does explicitly recite
accumulating a score for each symptom in the computer listings, columns 50-72, in
which the score for each symptom is accumulated in the next entry for the matrix “scr”
by accumulating the symptom code stored in “scl” with an explicit number. Therefore,
we find the appellants’ argument to be unpersuasive and sustain the rejections of claims
16-18, 20, 21 and 23-28.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007