Appeal 2007-0987
Application 09/810,992
simply reiterated the features recited in claims 18-20 and drawn a
conclusion, without more, that the features in Forecast Pro identified by the
Examiner do not correspond to such claimed features. Such arguments do
not, in our view, satisfy Appellants’ burden of providing evidence and/or
arguments which show how the Examiner has erred in presenting a prima
facie case of anticipation.
For example, Appellants contend that, in contrast to Forecast Pro’s
“expert system” and “forecasting technique,” the language of claim 18
requires the selection, by an arbiter, of a personalization engine by analyzing
at least one profile element. In support of this contention, Appellants argue
(Br. 7) that the expert system in Forecast Pro, which the Examiner asserts
corresponds to the claimed arbiter, merely “analyzes data and ‘selects the
appropriate forecasting technique.’” It is our opinion, however, that,
although Forecast Pro uses different nomenclature from that claimed, the
disclosed operation of the expert system in Forecast Pro, which Appellants
correctly summarize, corresponds precisely to that which is claimed.
In other words, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the
user’s historical data analyzed by the expert system in Forecast Pro
corresponds to the claimed “profile element,” especially in view of
Appellants’ description of a “profile element” in the Specification (5:5-11).
Similarly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding (Answer 14) that Forecast
Pro’s forecasting model technique corresponds to the claimed
personalization engine. As explained by the Examiner, Forecast Pro
describes the use of various forecasting models to analyze a user’s historical
data to develop forecast reports, which description corresponds, in our view,
to Appellants’ description (Specification 6-7) of a personalization engine as
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013