Appeal 2007-0728
Application 09/954,796
1 The Appellants contend that Parthesarathy merely asks the user whether it is
2 okay to download and does not characterize the use of the user (Br. 10-12; Reply
3 Br. 2-4). Essentially, the Appellants are arguing for a more narrow construction of
4 the term “characterizing.” However the term “characterizing” is a very broad term,
5 meaning to describe the qualities or peculiarities of (FF04). In Parthesarathy, the
6 system queries whether the user wants to load the update now, in the future, or
7 never (FF15). As such, the system of Parthesarathy uses the query to obtain
8 information on the particularities of the user’s use of the program, thereby
9 “characterizing” the use, by determining when, and if, the user wishes to download
10 updated software for the program. The Appellants also argue that claim 1 requires
11 that the claimed method decide which programs would be best for the user.
12 However, claim 1 actually requires only a determination that the program might be
13 beneficial, which, given its user’s decision to acknowledge a desire for such a
14 program, Parthesarathy clearly provides. Finally, as to the Appellants’ contention
15 that characterizing means analyzing, we find no lexicographic definition in the
16 Specification to support this assertion.
17 As to the Appellants’ contention that Parthesarathy’s files are downloaded
18 from the Internet rather than from a storage device, the Internet relies on such
19 storage devices as depositories of files for such download and is thus inherent in
20 Parthesarathy’s teachings (FF11).
21 Regarding the Appellants’ contention that Parthesarathy fails to show querying
22 what a user wants to accomplish (Br. 14; Reply Br. 8), this is no more than a
23 species of the genus of characterizing the use which we determined was shown by
24 Parthesarathy supra.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013