Appeal 2007-1695
Application 10/418,835
An active environment 101 may be defined as one in which
people, places, and things are citizens of a connected wired and
wireless world where e-services meet the physical world in
which humans are mobile, devices and services are federated
and context aware, and everything has a web presence. The
active environment 101 may include computer agents that act
for and represent a user in a web-connected world.
(Specification 3, ll. 10-14).
Thus, we find the scope of the instant claimed “active environment”
broadly but reasonably encompasses Huemoeller’s laptop computer (i.e., a
portable device) as connected to the Internet (See Huemoeller, col. 2, l. 57,
i.e., “Internet on-line service”; see also col. 4, l. 5, i.e., “laptop computers”).
We find the recited term “active information” broadly but reasonably reads
on any information, as the term “active information” is not defined within
the Specification, nor is a definition for this term argued by Appellants in the
Briefs. We further find that accessing information from a laptop computer
(i.e., a portable device) necessarily (i.e., inherently) requires software (i.e.,
an interface module) to retrieve the information from computer storage.
Because we find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
position, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 11 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Huemoeller.
Dependent claims 13-15
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claims 13-15. In the absence of
a separate argument with respect to the dependent claims, those claims stand
or fall with the representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013