Appeal 2006-2033
Application 10/116,774
In view of the above discussion, it is our opinion that even assuming,
arguendo, that proper motivation existed for the Examiner’s proposed
combination of Moore and Armga, the ensuing combination would not result
in the specific combination set forth in appealed independent claims 1, 10,
15, and 19. Accordingly, since we are of the view that the proposed
combination of references set forth by the Examiner does not support the
obviousness rejection, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims
1, 10, 15, and 19, nor of claims 2-9, 11, 12, 14, 16-18, and 20-23 dependent
thereon.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 13 in which the Burkett reference is added to the
combination of Moore and Armga to address the claimed user update
feature. We find nothing, however, in the Burkett reference which would
overcome the innate deficiencies of the previously discussed Moore and
Armga references.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013