Appeal No. 2006-1534
Application No. 09/829,007
The appellants next argue that, as to claim 22, Finkelstein fails to show providing
educational material to a patient. As the examiner points out, Finkelstein describes
information concerning asthma being provided to the patient at col. 7, lines 34-37. [See
Answer at p. 11] We note that such information is fairly characterized as educational,
and therefore, we find the appellants’ arguments to be unpersuasive and sustain the
rejection of claim 22.
Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-8, 10, 12-15,
16-18, and 20-28 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being unpatentable as
anticipated by Finkelstein.
Claims 9 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable as obvious
over Finkelstein.
The appellants next argue that, as to claim 9, Finkelstein does not teach “at least
one indicator includes at least one of a severity level, a compliance level, and a
performance level.” [See Brief at p. 12] As the examiner responds, Finkelstein does
explicitly recite a severity level at col. 6 lines 19-20 and compliance and performance
at col. 7 lines 21-37. Although the appellants argue this is based upon physical
characteristics and not questions, 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 the questions. Therefore, we find the appellants’
argument to be unpersuasive and sustain the rejection of claim 9.
The appellants next argue that, as to claim 19, Finkelstein does not teach
“personalizing the assessment questions.” [See Brief at p. 12] As the examiner
responds, Finkelstein does explicitly personalizing in formulating the alert status from
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007