Appeal No. 2006-2458
Application No. 10/147,673
Appellant asserts that there is no mention of the user selecting an item in
the example [id.]. Appellant asserts that according to the specification the
user can exclude an item without selecting an item [id.].
Appellant concludes that the negative limitation of claim 15 is thus
supported by the specification and that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112,
first paragraph, should be reversed [id.].
The examiner responds that in the example pointed to by appellant
(see instant specification, page 22, line 33 through page 23, line 6), the user
must clearly say “No” in order to set the anti-entity value [answer, page
12]. The examiner argues that the user selecting “No” contradicts the
limitation in claim 15, i.e., “without receiving an indication that a user has
selected an item” [id.]. The examiner concludes that this shows a lack of an
adequate written description [id.].
We find that the evidence of record supports the examiner’s position.
In particular, we find that in the example argued by appellant, the user
actually makes multiple selections:
1. The user selects to book a flight from Bill’s house (i.e., selecting Bill or
at least the set of all individuals with “Bill” as their first name).
2. The user selects “NO.”
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007