Appeal No. 2006-3042
Application No. 10/720,494
offered assistance. Such a system automatically identifies novice users and
others needing help with a particular program and offers help accordingly.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A computer readable medium containing processor executable
instructions for providing assistance to a user, comprising:
code for monitoring user events;
code for determining whether a series of user events is unrelated; and
code for offering assistance to a user, wherein said code for offering
assistance is operable upon determination by said code for determining that said
series of user events is unrelated.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Wu 5,991,756 Nov. 23, 1999
Amro et al. (Amro) 6,339,436 Jan. 15, 2002
(filed Dec. 18, 1998)
The following rejections1 are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1, 8, 17, and 24-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Amro.
1 Because an ambiguity exists in the examiner’s grounds of rejection, our statement of the
rejections on appeal is based substantially on appellant’s interpretation of the examiner’s intent –
an interpretation that we find reasonable based on the totality of the record and that the examiner
acknowledged as correct [see brief, page 4; answer, page 2]. We disagree with appellant,
however, with regard to claim 31. Since claim 31 depends from claim 18 – a claim presumed
rejected under § 103(a) – claim 31 has been grouped accordingly. In any event, although the
examiner’s rejection under § 102(e) included only claims 1 and 24-26, we agree with appellant
that the examiner apparently intended to include claims 8, 17, and 27-30 in the rejection. In
particular, the examiner states that claims 8-14 and 27-29 “are essentially the same as claims 1-6
and 24-26” except for reciting a method rather than a computer readable medium [answer, page
6]. The examiner further notes that claims 17-19, 30, and 31 are “essentially the same as claims
1-6 and 24-26” except for reciting a system rather than a computer readable medium [id.].
Although it is unclear why these statements were made in connection with an obviousness
rejection of claims 3-6 [see answer, page 5], we nevertheless conclude that the most reasonable
interpretation of the examiner’s actions in light of the commensurate limitations of the claims and
the examiner’s statements is that the examiner intended to reject claims 1, 8, 17, and 24-30
under § 102(e), and reject the remainder of the pending claims under § 103(a).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013