Appeal 2007-0275
Application 09/313,278
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 39
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 39 as
being anticipated by Douglas.
Appellant argues that Douglas does not disclose the recited step of
“determining a user sophistication based on the user inquiry” (Br. 5; see
claim 39). Appellant acknowledges that Douglas discloses a rewards feature
where users earn points by “good participation in the program and by
reaching certain milestones” (see Douglas, col. 14, ll. 42-44). However,
Appellant asserts that reward points, like any other form of currency, fail to
provide any indication of “user sophistication” (Br. 6). Appellant further
argues that Douglas fails to disclose or suggest determining user
sophistication at all (Br. 7, ¶ 4).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues that the actual number
of reward points accumulated by the user [as disclosed by Douglas] does, in
fact, correspond to a level of “user sophistication,” as claimed (Answer 7).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant acknowledges that the claimed
“sophistication” of the user is not determined solely by the educational level
of the user. Nevertheless, Appellant asserts “it is clear from the instant
Specification that user sophistication relates to the degree of knowledge of
the user about the specific medical condition in question” (Reply Br. 4, ¶ 3,
emphasis added).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013