Appeal No. 2006-1544
Application 10/024,621
67 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Maloney. The
examiner’s position is set forth on pages 5-8 of the answer.
Appellants’ only point of contention with regard to the examiner’s
position is that Maloney’s guidance in the form of a recommended
list of beauty products is not arrived at as “a function of at least
some of the profile information and [a]... birth-related
classification” (brief, page 27). More specifically, appellants’
contend that the examiner’s attempt to equate the “life stage”
information disclosed at page 7 of Maloney with appellants’ “birth-
related classification” recited in the claims on appeal is in error.
Appellants urge that Maloney describes life stage as one example of
psychological information, and that accordingly life stage refers to
the periods of life with psychological impact, such as starting high
school, going to college, marriage, and retirement, which is not the
same as a birth-related classification, such as a subject’s
astrological horoscope sign (reply brief, page 6).
Giving the terminology “birth-related classification” its
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification
as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand it, we find
that the examiner is correct. While appellants use the example of
astrological horoscope signs as one form of “birth-related
classification,” we view that particular terminology much more
broadly as also encompassing Maloney’s “life stage” information.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007