Appeal No. 2006-1942
Application No. 09/795,722
uploaded from a plurality of virtual pet owners (column 18, lines
44 through 56). The noted scores are “tailored information that
is personalized for the user based on the user activity
information” uploaded to the database/scorekeeper (brief, page
6). Thus, the anticipation rejection of claim 81 is sustained.
Turning to claim 82, Brown formats tailored information for
graphical display (column 12, lines 1 through 4), for
transmission (column 18, lines 57 through 67), and for display on
a LCD that has a higher resolution than prior art LCDs (column
19, lines 33 through 37). The anticipation rejection of claim 82
is, therefore, sustained because Brown formats “the tailored
information according to capabilities of a device that the
tailored information is presented on.”
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claim 83, we
agree with the examiner’s findings (answer, page 4) that Byrd
teaches evaluating a user’s information for a pattern (column 6,
lines 23 through 41), and the use of a programmed device “to
prompt the user with questions based upon tracked progress to aid
in additional progress monitoring (6:1-39),” and that the skilled
artisan would have been motivated to use the motivational aid and
data analysis system taught by Byrd in Brown “because providing
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007