Appeal 2007-0275
Application 09/313,278
user sophistication is determined based on a user inquiry, as required to
meet the disputed language of the claim. Therefore, we find the Examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation for claim 39.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 39
as being anticipated by Douglas.
Dependent claims 40-51
Because we have reversed the Examiner’s rejection of the sole
independent claim (claim 39), we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of any dependent claims under appeal. Therefore, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 40-50 as being anticipated by
Douglas. Likewise, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim
51 as being unpatentable over Douglas in view of Official Notice.
OTHER ISSUE
We note that the question of whether it would have been obvious to
“[determine] a user sophistication based on the user inquiry” is not before us
(claim 39). However, we direct the Examiner’s attention to U.S. Patent
5,287,448 to Nicol (1994) that teaches a method and apparatus for providing
help information to computer users. Nicol teaches a method of providing
messages that are context sensitive (col. 2, ll. 32-33). In particular, Nicol
discloses that context elements can be the type of help requested by the user
as well as the user’s level of sophistication (col. 2, ll. 37-41). We conclude
that Douglas at least suggests a need for different levels of medical
information to be provided to different categories of users (see Douglas at
col. 5, ll. 60-61: “The members of the wellness group may not need all the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013