Appeal No. 2006-1534
Application No. 09/829,007
background information at col. 6 lines 65-68. Although the appellants argue this is not
the personalizing claimed, which might be including a person’s name, the claim does
not specify any particular manner of personalization and Finkelstein’s description may
fairly be characterized as personalization. Therefore, we find the appellants’ argument
to be unpersuasive and sustain the rejection of claim 19.
Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 19 as rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Finkelstein.
Claims 11 and 35-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable as
obvious over Finkelstein in view of Brown ‘469.
The appellants next argue that claim 11 is patentable for the same reasons as
claim 6 and 7. [See Brief at p. 14] We address this argument the same as the
arguments to claims 6 and 7 above. Therefore, we find the appellant's arguments to be
unpersuasive and sustain the rejection of claim 11.
The appellants next argue that claims 35 and 38 to 40 are patentable for the
same reasons as argued in the claims addressed above. Although the argument tends
to focus on Finkelstein’s alert parameters, we note that all of the routines in Finkelstein’s
columns 51-72 set scores to zero, ask questions, adjusting a score for an indicator
related to the question, providing numeric indicator levels for each question based on
comparing to the choices presented, and providing the indicator level to the database
and ultimately the physician and patient. The one new argument is that Brown does not
use the phrase “performance level”. [See Brief at p. 14] However, as the examiner
responded to claim 9 above, Finkelstein teaches severity, alert and compliance levels.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007