Ex Parte Kropf et al - Page 2

                Appeal 2007-1571                                                                             
                Application 10/198,335                                                                       
                      Appellants’ claimed invention relates to electrical device user                        
                interface customization providing for the reconfiguration of an existing                     
                arrangement of a particular user interface to the electrical device.  The                    
                customized device user interface incorporates changes in a particular                        
                interface layout in accordance with a plurality of selections made by a user.                
                Implementation of a selected device interface is facilitated providing a                     
                customized interface to a user when accessing the interface via a browser.                   
                (Specification 11-13).                                                                       
                      Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and it reads as follows:                      
                1. A method for facilitating customization of an electrical device user                      
                interface, comprising:                                                                       
                receiving a device interface selection for reconfiguring an existing                         
                arrangement of a particular user interface to the electrical device; and                     
                facilitating implementation of the selection such that a customized                          
                electrical device user interface is presented to a user when accessing the                   
                interface via a browser executing on a separate electrical device.                           
                      The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show                      
                unpatentability:                                                                             
                Van Oostenbrugge  US 2002/0054086 A1 May 9, 2002                                             
                Prichard   US 2003/0025732 A1 Feb. 6, 2003                                                   
                      (filed Jul. 31, 2001)                                                                  
                Allor    US 2003/0222904 A1 Dec. 4, 2003                                                     
                                                                   (filed May 30, 2002)                      
                      Claims 10, 13-16, 18, 20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                        
                § 102(e) as being anticipated by Prichard.  Claims 1-9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 21,                  
                22, and 24-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  As evidence of                       
                obviousness, the Examiner offers Prichard in view of Allor with respect to                   

                                                     2                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013