Appeal No. 2007-0222
Application No. 09/726,797
OPINION
Generally, for the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, we
sustain the rejection of all claims on appeal as further embellished by the
following additional comments. Appellants present arguments only as to
independent claims 1, 17, and 18 collectively, and among each of these
independent claims, emphasize the same feature of each of them:
determining a content profile associated with the device, the content
profile including at least one operation and parameter for conditioning
data on the device.
Appellants’ admitted prior art Figure 1 and the associated text in the
background of the invention essentially is prior art to substantially all
limitations of representative independent claim 1 on appeal except for the
quoted material just cited. Of particular note as well, the bottom of page 2
of the Specification as filed indicates that the subject matter illustrated in
prior art Figure 1 is found in a prior U.S. patent.
The responsive argument’s portion of the Answer beginning at page
11 in part makes note of the fact that certain of Appellants’ arguments made
at pages 5 through 8 of the Brief are not coextensive with the subject matter
actually recited in representative independent claim 1 on appeal. As noted at
the bottom of page 14 of the Answer, for example, “only one” device is not
recited in this claim in contrast to the argument made at the bottom of page 5
of the Brief. The assertion at page 6 of the Brief that: “Robotham does not
teach or suggest conditioning content based on a specific operation of a
particular device” and the additional urging that “Robotham is silent about
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013