Appeal 2007-0728
Application 09/954,796
1 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 21-24, and 44
2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Parthesarathy and Himmel.
3
4 Claim 43 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Parthesarathy,
5 Himmel, and Bradford.
6 From the above Findings of Fact, we must conclude that
7 • The art applied shows querying a user as to what the peripheral device may
8 be used for (FF36).
9 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 43 under 35 U.S.C.
10 § 103(a) as obvious over Parthesarathy, Himmel, and Bradford.
11
12 NEW GROUND OF REJECTION UNDER 37 CFR § 41.50(B)
13 Pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b), we enter the following new grounds of
14 rejection:
15 Claims 1-20, 37- 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
16 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
17 applicant regards as his invention.
18 More particularly, independent claims 1, 10, and 17 have a limitation that
19 programs that may be beneficial to the user are provided. The attribute of
20 beneficence is totally subjective to each individual obviating any possibility of
21 pointing out the scope of the claims with any degree of objective particularity.
22 Reference to undefined standards, regardless of whose views might
23 influence the formation of those standards, fails to provide any direction to one
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013