Appeal No. 2006-2458
Application No. 10/147,673
claim 15 is consistent with the above example [reply brief, page 5].
Appellant asserts that Robinson shows that a user does not want an item
only with the selection of another item [reply brief, page 7, ¶2]. Appellant
further concludes that Robinson does not show an indication of exclusion
without selecting an item [id.].
In response, we note again that we find the user actually makes
multiple selections in the example argued by appellant (see page 22, line 33
through page 23, line 6 of the instant specification). We find:
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).
_ The user selects “NO.”
Therefore, we agree with the examiner that the user selections in the
example pointed to by appellant contradict claim 15 and fail to support
appellant’s arguments. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection
of representative claim 15 as being unpatentable over Horiguchi in view of
Robinson. We note that dependent claims 16-17, 19 and 23-25 do not
overcome the deficiencies of claim 15 since appellant has not separately
argued the patentability of these claims with respect to this rejection. See In
re Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572, 2 USPQ2d at 1528. See also 37 C.F.R.
24
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007