Appeal No. 2006-1785 Page 21
Application No. 10/768,827
As per dependent claims 2, 16 and 28
Appellants argue that Ryzl and McLain, taken alone or in combination,
do not teach nor suggest “wherein said responding comprises undertaking
an action as described by said response associated with said request,
collecting a result of said action, and reporting said result to said application”
as recited in claim 2 and similarly in claims 16 and 28 [brief, page 34].
We disagree. We note that McLain explicitly discloses undertaking an
action as part of the response, as claimed. See col. 10, lines 15-19:
Actions can include a first level of response for unintelligently responding to certain
inputs, a second level of response for intelligently responding to certain inputs using
simple commands and a third level of response for providing detailed logical
responses by invoking a script.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 16
and 28 as being unpatentable over Ryzl in view of McLain.
As per dependent claims 4, 17 and 29
Appellants argue that Ryzl, McLain and Flynn, taken alone or in
combination, do not teach nor suggest “wherein said obtaining comprises
searching said data source for a matching request and, upon finding said
matching request, retrieving the response associated with said matching
request” as recited in claim 4 and similarly in claims 17 and 29 [brief, page
35].
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007