Appeal No. 2006-1534
Application No. 09/829,007
Therefore, we find the appellants’ arguments to be unpersuasive and sustain the
rejections of claims 35 and 38 to 40.
The appellants next argue that claims 36 and 37 are patentable and repeat the
same arguments presented for claims 9 and 19 above. [See Brief at p. 17-18] We find
these arguments unpersuasive for the same reasons we noted above in our analysis of
claims 9 and 19 and sustain the rejections of claims 36 and 37.
Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 35-40 as
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Finkelstein in
view of Brown ‘469.
Claims 2 and 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable as obvious
over Finkelstein in view of Brown ‘163.
The appellants next argue that claims 2 and 3 are patentable and repeat the
same arguments presented for claims 1 and 9 above. [See Brief at p. 19-20] We
further note that although claim 3 includes a limitation that the accumulating means
accumulates multiple scores for at least two indicators, this is broader than
accumulating multiple scores into the same data field, and embraces the scope of
accumulating multiple scores, each in a separate data field. Certainly the matrix “scr”,
which accumulates fields each containing a score, that Finkelstein describes in columns
51-72, is fairly within the scope of this limitation. We find these arguments
unpersuasive for the same reasons we noted above in our analysis of claims 1 and 9
and sustain the rejections of claims 2 and 3.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007