Appeal 2007-0728
Application 09/954,796
1 31. Thus, Kroening shows suggesting an alternative in response to receipt of a
2 user selection that identifies a software program the user already possesses.
3 32. Himmel shows querying a user whether to accept and configure a peripheral
4 device.
5 33. To accept and configure is an instance of how to use a device.5
6 34. Thus, Himmel shows querying the user as to how the user plans to use a
7 peripheral device (Himmel, col. 2, l. 66 – col. 3, l. 2).
8 35. To configure a device is to specify its context and therefore to specify what
9 the device may be used for.
10 36. Thus, Himmel shows querying a user as to what the peripheral device may
11 be used for.
12
13 ANALYSIS
14 Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-12, 14-20, 25-36, 38, 40, and 42 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
15 § 102(e) as anticipated by Parthesarathy.
16 From the above Findings of Fact, supported by a preponderance of substantial
17 evidence, we must conclude that
18 • The art applied shows characterizing the use of the user based upon the user
19 responses (FF 06).
20 • The art applied shows providing software programs that may be beneficial to
21 the user based upon the characterization of the use (FF 08).
22 • The art applied shows querying a user as to the needs of the user (FF 03).
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013