Appeal 2006-3117
Application 09/732,498
Gessel2 are non-analogous art and there is insufficient motivation to
combine them with Brown and Travaille. (Br.10-12, Reply Br. 2-3.)
Appellants reiterate these same arguments against the rejection of claim 12
as being unpatentable over the references cited above in further combination
with Hendricks. (Br. 15, Reply Br. 4.) In response, the Examiner contends
that the Final Rejection provided sufficient statements of motivation to
combine the cited references, and that Leermakers and Gessell complement
Brown and Travaille to yield the claimed invention. (Answer 4-11.)
Second, Appellants contend that the combination of Brown, Travaille,
Leermakers and Diwan does not render claims 14 through 17 unpatentable.
Particularly, Appellants contend that Leermakers and Diwan3 are non-
analogous art and there is insufficient motivation to combine them with
Brown and Travaille. (Br. 12-14, Reply Br. 3-4.) In response, the Examiner
contends that the Final Rejection provided sufficient statements of
motivation to combine the cited references, and that Leermakers and Diwan
complement Brown and Travaille to yield the claimed invention. (Answer
11-12.)
applications via a Java implemented device. However, Leermakers is not
particularly concerned with data log transactions or navigational activity
pertaining to the user.
2 At page 11 of the Amended Brief, Appellants argue that Gessel relates to a
telecommunication network, and fails to teach any type of broadcast system
that obtains data regarding customer use nor does it teach downloading
software on any type of device.
3 At page 13 of the Amended Brief, Appellants argue that Diwan relates to
an information distribution system that provides information to multiple
subscribers. However, it fails to teach any type of broadcast system that
obtains data regarding customer use nor does it teach downloading software
on any type of device.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013