Appeal 2007-0728
Application 09/954,796
1 The Appellants invented a way to distribute software (Specification 1). An
2 understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
3 claim 1, which is reproduced below.
4 1. A method for distributing software, comprising:
5 querying a user as to the needs of the user;
6 receiving user responses to the query;
7 characterizing the use of the user based upon the user responses; and
8 providing software programs that may be beneficial to the user based
9 upon the characterization of the use.
10
11 This appeal arises from the Examiner’s Final Rejection, mailed November 2,
12 2005. The Appellants filed an Appeal Brief in support of the appeal on April 3,
13 2006, and the Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer to the Appeal Brief on
14 June 14, 2006. A Reply Brief was filed on August 18, 2006.
15 PRIOR ART
16 The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
17 appealed claims are:
18 Parthesarathy US 6,353,926 B1 Mar. 5, 2002
19 (Jul. 15, 1998)
20 Bradford US 6,678,679 B1 Jan. 13, 2004
21 (Oct. 10, 2000)
22 Himmel US 6,742,052 B2 May 25, 2004
23 (Aug. 9, 2001)
24 Kroening US 6,859,924 B1 Feb. 22, 2005
25 (Dec. 12, 2000)
26
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013