Ex Parte Pearson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 17, 2009

10241893 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 17, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte SIANI LYNNE PEARSON
____________
Appeal 2009-000741
Application 10/241,8931
Technology Center 2400
____________
Decided: September 18, 2009
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JEAN R. HOMERE, and THU A.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Filed on September 12, 2002. This application claims foreign priority to
0122048.2, filed on September 13, 2001. The real party in interest is
Hewlett-Packard Development Company L.P.
Appeal 2009-000741
Application 10/241,893

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 20. Claims 21 through 35 have been
withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Brief Summary of the Invention
Appellant invented a method and apparatus for obtaining a profile of a
user across a network computer system. (Spec. 1, ll. 8-10.) Appellant’s
Figure 1 depicts a user apparatus (10) that includes a capture unit (12) for
capturing profile characteristics. (Spec. 17, ll. 6-7.) The user apparatus (10)
further includes a profile unit (13) for forming a user self-profile based upon
a user identity as established by the trusted platform (11) and one or more
profile characteristics captured by the capture unit (12). (Spec. 18, ll. 1-5.)
Each user self-profile is stored and maintained on the user apparatus (10).
(Spec. 18, ll. 11-12.) According to Appellant, after the user apparatus (10)
creates a user self-profile, it makes the user self-profile available to each
inquiry apparatus (20). (Spec. 13, ll. 18-20.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:
1. A method for obtaining a user profile of a user for storage on a
user accessible computing apparatus and for sharing the profile, comprising
the steps of:

capturing at least one profile characteristic associated with said user;

combining identity information of said user and the captured profile
characteristic to form a user self-profile;

storing said user self-profile on said user accessible computing
apparatus; and
Appeal 2009-000741
Application 10/241,893

3

making the user self-profile available to one or more remote
computers together with information verifying a trusted status of said user
accessible computing apparatus in response to an inquiry received
therefrom.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Docter US 6,330,610 B1 Dec. 11, 2001
(filed Dec. 4, 1997)
Guheen US 6,519,571 B1 Feb. 11, 2003
(filed May 27, 1999)
Miettinen WO 01/54346 A1 July 26, 2001

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 1, 2, 6 through 9, and 12 through 17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Guheen and
Docter.
Claims 5 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Guheen and Miettinen.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Guheen, Docter, and
Miettinen.
Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in concluding that
the combination of Guheen and Docter renders independent claim 1
unpatentable. In particular, Appellant argues:
Appeal 2009-000741
Application 10/241,893

4
(a) Guheen’s disclosure of a global directory for storing user
profiles, in conjunction with employing authentication protocols, does not
teach making available information verifying a trusted status of said user
accessible computing apparatus. (App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 2-3.)
(b) Guheen’s disclosure of developing a user profile, in conjunction
with creating a user profile from information about a user, does not teach
capturing a least one profile characteristic associated with said user and
combining identity information of said user and the captured profile
characteristic to form a user self-profile. (App. Br. 6-12; Reply Br. 3-6.)
2. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in concluding that
the combination of Guheen and Docter renders independent claim 16
unpatentable. In particular, Appellant argues:
(a) There is insufficient rationale for the proffered combination.
(App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 8.)
(b) Guheen’s disclosure of storing a user profile in a global
directory where it can be accessed by users from anywhere in the network
teaches away from Docter’s disclosure of storing the user self-profile on a
client computer. (App. Br. 14-15.)
3. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in concluding that
the combination of Guheen and Miettinen renders independent claims 5 and
20 unpatentable. In particular, Appellant argues:
(a) Miettinen is non-analogous art because it is not in the field of
Appellant’s endeavor. (App. Br. 16-17.)
(b) There is insufficient rationale for the proffered combination.
(App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 8-9.)

Appeal 2009-000741
Application 10/241,893

5
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
1. The Examiner concludes that the combination of Guheen and
Docter renders independent claim 1 unpatentable. In particular, the
Examiner finds that:
(a) Guheen’s disclosure of a global directory for storing user
profiles, in conjunction with employing authentication protocols that verify
users requesting to access an inquiry resource, teaches making the user self-
profile available to one or more remote computers together with information
verifying a trusted status of said user accessible computing apparatus. (Ans.
19-21.)
(b) Guheen’s disclosure of developing a profile from many sources
by capturing information from a user as he or she uses the network, in
conjunction with associating particular data stored on the server with a
particular user, teaches capturing a least one profile characteristic associated
with said user and combining identity information of said user and the
capture profile characteristic to form a user self-profile. (Ans. 21-23.)
2. The Examiner concludes that the combination of Guheen and
Docter renders independent claim 16 unpatentable. In particular, the
Examiner finds that:
(a) Guheen’s disclosure of a user identification system and, in
particular, utilizing a user profile to customize an interface, in conjunction
with Docter’s disclosure of filtering data in multiple stages without exposing
private information to un-trusted servers, teaches the claimed invention.
(Ans. 25-27.)
Appeal 2009-000741
Application 10/241,893

6
(b) Guheen’s disclosure of storing a user profile on a global
directory can be modified to function in a similar manner to Docter’s
disclosure of storing profile data on a client server. (Ans. 27-29.)
3. The Examiner concludes that the combination of Guheen and
Miettinen renders independent claims 5 and 20 unpatentable. In particular,
the Examiner finds that:
(a) Miettinen’s disclosure of obtaining an electronic identity from
its own previous user profile that was captured and stored on a server is
analogous to Guheen’s disclosure of storing a user profile on a global
directory. (Ans. 29-30.)
(b) Miettinen’s disclosure of obtaining an electronic identity from
its own previous user profile that was captured and stored on a server, in
conjunction with Guheen’s disclosure of developing a profile from many
sources by capturing information from a user as he or she uses the network,
teaches the claimed invention. (Ans. 30-31.)

II. ISSUES
1. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in concluding
that the combination of Guheen and Docter renders independent claim 1
unpatentable? In particular, the issue turns on whether:
(a) Guheen teaches making the user self-profile available to one or
more remote computers together with information verifying a trusted status
of said user accessible computing apparatus in response to an inquiry
received therefrom, as recited in independent claim 1.
(b) Guheen teaches capturing a least one profile characteristic
associated with said user and combining identity information of said user
Appeal 2009-000741
Application 10/241,893

7
and the capture profile characteristic to form a user self-profile, as recited in
independent claim 1.
2. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in concluding
that the combination of Guheen and Docter renders independent claim 16
unpatentable? In particular, the issue turns on whether:
(a) There is sufficient rationale for the proffered combination.
(b) Guheen’s disclosure of storing a user profile in a global
directory where it can be accessed by users from anywhere in the network
teaches away from Docter’s disclosure of storing a user self-profile on a
client computer.
3. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in concluding
that the combination of Guheen and Miettinen renders independent claims 5
and 20 unpatentable? In particular, the issue turns on whether:
(a) Miettinen is within the scope of the prior art analogous to the
claimed invention.
(b) There is sufficient rationale for the proffered combination.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (“FF”) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
Appellant’s Invention
1. Appellant’s invention generally relates to maintaining privacy
while releasing relevant profile characteristics of interest to inquirers. (Spec.
5, ll. 22-25.)

Appeal 2009-000741
Application 10/241,893

8
Guheen
2. Guheen generally relates to user identification systems and
processes and, in particular, pertains to utilizing a user profile to customize
an interface. (Col. 1, ll. 6-8.) Guheen discloses a multi-protocol, scalable
global directory for storing information such as user definitions, user
profiles, network resource definitions, and configuration parameters. (Col.
15, ll. 65-67.) It employs naming, directory, and authentication protocols on
top of a shared, distributed, object repository. (Col. 15, ll. 67-68.) Users
and applications can use the directory to locate and access information from
anywhere in the network. (Col. 15, ll. 68-69.)
3. Guheen’s Figure 68 depicts developing a customer’s profile
(1610). (Col. 180, ll. 18-19.) This profile may be developed from many
sources including customer input, customer buying habits, customer income
level, customer search habits, customer profession, customer education
level, customer’s purpose of the pending sale, customer’s shopping habits,
etc. (Col. 180, ll. 19-23.) Such information may be input directly by the
user, captured as a user uses the network, and maybe downloaded
periodically from a user’s system. (Col. 180, ll. 24-26.)
4. Guheen discloses a typical database or filed-based shopping
cart system that requires the user to be uniquely identified in order to
associate particular data stored on the server with a particular user. (Col.
182, ll. 40-43.) This requires the user to log-in or create an account, which
is then stored on the server. (Col. 182, ll. 43-45.)
5. Guheen discloses maintaining a security log and user profile of
what was accessed when, from a computer resource, facility and data view
point. (Col. 148, ll. 29-31.)
Appeal 2009-000741
Application 10/241,893

9
Docter
6. Docter generally relates to a data filtering system that filters
data in multiple stages. (Abstract.) In particular, the first filter criteria and
the second filter criteria can be included in a profile data set. (Abstract.)
The profile data set may be associated with a particular data recipient.
(Abstract.) Further, Docter’s Figure 2 depicts a flow diagram that illustrates
a procedure for performing multi-stage data filtering. (Col. 4, ll. 48-49.) At
step (40), a profile data set is generated and stored on a client. (Col. 4, ll.
51-53.)
7. Docter’s Figure 3 depicts that the server requests filter criteria
from the client at step (64). (Col. 5, ll. 39-41.) In response to the server’s
request for filter criteria, the client determines the level of trust associated
with the requesting server at step (66). (Col. 5, ll. 41-43.) At step (68), the
client transmits profile data elements associated with the server’s level of
trust to the server. (Col. 5, ll. 43-45.)
Miettinen
8. Miettinen generally relates to secure communication whereby
entities are often required to electronically authenticate themselves before
utilizing services or executing a transaction. (Pg. 1, ll. 16-19.) In particular,
Miettinen discloses issuing an electronic identity based on a previously
certified electronic identity and, in particular, using a previously certified
identity to create another representational form for the same identity.
(Abstract.) Further, Miettinen discloses that the previously certified identity
can be called a mobile identity, which is associated with a person’s mobile
terminal or mobile phone. (Abstract.) Miettinen discloses linking a mobile
phone owner’s (presumably anonymous) network identification number
Appeal 2009-000741
Application 10/241,893

10
(“NID”) with a public pretty good privacy (“PGP”) identity via an encrypted
channel. (Pg. 14, ll. 20-22.)

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under
§ 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by
rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.” In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the
differences between the subject matter sought to be
patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter
as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which said subject matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).

In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in
granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior
art,” and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to
be obvious. Id. at 415 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14
(1966)) (citation omitted). The Court reaffirmed principles based on its
precedent that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” Id. at 416. The operative question in this “functional approach” is
thus “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions.” Id. at 415, 417.
Appeal 2009-000741
Application 10/241,893

11
In identifying a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary
skill in the relevant field to combine the prior art teachings, the Examiner
must show some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Teaching Away
“What the prior art teaches and whether it teaches toward or away
from the claimed invention . . . is a determination of fact.” Para-Ordnance
Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int'l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(citations omitted). “A reference may be said to teach away when a person
of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Teaching an alternative or equivalent
method, however, does not teach away from the use of a claimed method. In
re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 438 (CCPA 1965).
Analogous Art
“Whether a reference in the prior art is ‘analogous’ is a fact question.”
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Panduit Corp. v.
Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Two criteria
have evolved for answering the question: “(1) whether the art is from the
same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the
reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the
reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
the inventor is involved.” Id. at 658-59 (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d
436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)).
Appeal 2009-000741
Application 10/241,893

12
V. ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant parts:
1) making the user self-profile available to one or more remote
computers together with information verifying a trusted status
of said user accessible computing apparatus in response to an
inquiry received therefrom; 2) capturing a least one profile
characteristic associated with said user; and 3) combining
identity information of said user and the captured profile
characteristic to form a user self-profile.

As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Guheen discloses a
scalable global directory for storing user profiles. (FF 2.) In particular,
Guheen discloses that users and applications can use the directory to locate
and access information from anywhere in the network. (Id.) We find that by
allowing potential users to access various user profiles in the global
directory from anywhere in the network, Guheen teaches making the user
profiles available to one or more remote computers, as recited in
independent claim 1.
Further, Guheen discloses that the multi-protocol global directory
employs authentication protocols. (Id.) We find that Guheen’s disclosure
teaches a global directory that employs authentication protocols to verify the
status of a user requesting access thereby making available information
verifying a trusted status of the user accessible computing apparatus in
response to an inquiry received therefrom, as recited in independent claim 1.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Guheen’s disclosure of
authentication protocols does not teach an integrity metric that is formed by
a trusted platform module and further represents the status and condition of a
user apparatus. (Reply Br. 3.) Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in
Appeal 2009-000741
Application 10/241,893

13
scope with the claim language since it does not recite any such integrity
metric representing the condition of the user apparatus.
Further, Guheen discloses developing a customer’s profile utilizing
many sources including, but not limited to, customer input and customer
buying habits. (FF 3.) In particular, Guheen discloses that the customer
profile information may be directly inputted by a user or captured as a user
uses the network. (Id.) We find that Guheen’s disclosure teaches
developing a customer or user profile by capturing information as the user
uses the network. We thus agree with the Examiner that Guheen’s disclosure
of developing a customer or user profile by capturing information as the user
uses the network teaches capturing a least one profile characteristic
associated with said user, as recited in independent claim 1.
Additionally, Guheen discloses that a user must be uniquely identified
in order to associate particular data stored on the server with a particular
user. (FF 4.) This requires that the user log-in or create an account, which is
then stored on the server. (Id.) Further, Guheen discloses maintaining a
security log and user profile of the information accessed by the user. (FF 5.)
We find that Guheen’s disclosure teaches associating a user with a user
profile by requiring the user to log-in to the system. Further, as discussed
above, we find that Guheen’s disclosure teaches developing a customer or
user profile by capturing information as the user uses the network. In
summary, we find that Guheen’s disclosure of associating a user with a user
profile by requiring the user to log-in to the system, in conjunction with
developing a customer or user profile by capturing information as the user
uses the network, teaches combining identity information of said user and
Appeal 2009-000741
Application 10/241,893

14
the captured profile characteristic to form a user self-profile, as recited in
independent claim 1.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
pieces together different embodiments of Guheen without any consideration
as to what Guheen actually teaches. (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 5-6.) In KSR,
the Supreme Court emphasized that “in many cases a person of ordinary
skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces
of a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. Therefore, as discussed above, it is our
view that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been able to fit the
teachings of Guheen together like pieces of a puzzle.
Further, Appellant argues that “the final rejection does not include,
either explicitly or implicitly in view of the prior art applied, an indication of
the level of ordinary skill in the art.” (Reply Br. 7.) However, the absence
of an explicit finding concerning the level of ordinary skill in the art is not
reversible error if the prior art references relied on by the Examiner reflect a
sufficient level of skill to support the rejection. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). As detailed in the Findings of Fact
section above, the level of skill in the art is reflected in Guheen and Docter’s
disclosure of storing and sharing user profile information, including
associated identification information and captured profiles characteristics.
Therefore, a lack of a specific finding that an ordinarily skilled artisan is one
familiar with storing and sharing user-profiles on a computer is not
reversible error. It follows that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in concluding that the combination of Guheen and Docter renders
independent claim 1 unpatentable.

Appeal 2009-000741
Application 10/241,893

15
Claims 2, 6 though 9, and 12 through 15
Appellant does not provide separate arguments with respect to claims
2, 6 through 9, and 12 through 15. Therefore, we select claim 1 as being
representative of the cited claims. Consequently, Appellant has not shown
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 6 through 9, and 12 through 15
for the reasons set forth in our discussion of claim 1 above. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claim 16
As set forth above, we find that Guheen’s disclosure teaches a global
directory that allows potential users to access various user profiles from
anywhere in the network, employs authentication protocols to verify the
status of a user requesting access, and develops a customer or user profile by
capturing information as the user uses the network. Further, Docter’s
disclosure complements Guheen by storing a profile data set associated with
a particular data recipient on a client computer. (FF 6.) Thus, we find that
Guheen and Docter disclose prior art elements that perform their ordinary
functions to predictably result in a method and apparatus for making a user
self-profile available to an inquiry apparatus by obtaining a profile of a user
utilizing a user identity and respective captured profile characteristics. See
KSR, U.S. at 418-419.
Further, Appellant argues that Guheen’s disclosure of storing a user
profile in a global directory where it can be accessed by users from
anywhere in the network teaches away from Docter’s disclosure of storing a
user self-profile on a client computer. (App. Br. 14-15.) We do not agree.
As set forth above, we find that Docter discloses storing a profile data set
associated with a particular data recipient on a client computer. (Id.) In
Appeal 2009-000741
Application 10/241,893

16
particular, we find that Docter discloses that the client computer transmits
profile data elements to a server based on the server’s access request. (FF
7.) Appellant has shown nothing in Docter that would have discouraged an
ordinarily skilled artisan from preventing access to a user profile stored on a
client computer. Appellant has not pointed to an explicit disclosure within
Docter stating that user profiles cannot be stored on a client computer and
accessed via a server. Instead, Docter’s disclosure of transmitting profile
data elements stored on a client computer to a server based on the server’s
access request is an alternative or equivalent teaching to storing a user
profile on a global directory where it can be accessed by users from
anywhere in the network. (Ans. 28-29.) Therefore, Appellant has not
shown that Docter’s disclosure of transmitting profile data elements stored
on a client computer to a server based on a server’s access request teaches
away from Guheen disclosure of storing a user profile in a global directory
where it can be accessed by users from anywhere in the network.
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has not provided sufficient rationale
to warrant the proffered combination is unavailing.
Additionally, as discussed above, by allowing potential users to access
various user profiles in the global directory from anywhere in the network,
Guheen teaches making the user profiles available to one or more remote
computers. In particular, we find that Guheen’s disclosure of accessing a
user profile on the global directory server also teaches storing a user-profile
on a user apparatus, as recited in independent claim 16. Thus, alternatively,
Guheen teaches all the claim limitations of independent claim 16. It follows
that Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner erred in concluding the
Appeal 2009-000741
Application 10/241,893

17
combination of Guheen and Docter renders independent claim 16
unpatentable.
Claim 17
Appellant does not provide separate arguments with respect to claim
17. Therefore, we select claim 16 as being representative of the cited claim.
Consequently, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 17 for the reasons set forth in our discussion of claim 16 above. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claims 5 and 20
We find that Miettinen reasonably pertains to the problem with which
Appellant was concerned at the time of the claimed invention. In particular,
Appellant sought to maintain privacy by uniquely identifying users while
releasing relevant profile characteristics of interest to potential enquirers.
(FF 1.) Similarly, Miettinen generally relates to secure communication
whereby entities are often required to electronically authenticate themselves
before utilizing services or executing a transaction. (FF 8.) We find that
Miettinen’s disclosure of secure communications reasonably pertains to
Appellant’s solution for maintaining privacy. Therefore, Appellant’s
argument is not persuasive.
As set forth above, we find that Guheen’s disclosure teaches a global
directory that allows potential users to access various user profiles from
anywhere in the network, employs authentication protocols to verify the
status of a user requesting access, and develops a customer or user profile by
capturing information as the user uses the network. Further, Miettinen’s
disclosure complements Guheen by issuing an anonymous electronic
identity based on a previously certified electronic identity to create another
Appeal 2009-000741
Application 10/241,893

18
representational form for the same identity. (Id.) Thus, we find that Guheen
and Miettinen disclose prior art elements that perform their ordinary
functions to predictably result in a method and apparatus for making the user
self-profile available to each inquiry apparatus by obtaining a profile of a
user across a network computer system utilizing an anonymous user identity
and respective captured profile characteristics. See KSR, U.S. at 418-419. It
follows that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding
that the combination of Guheen and Miettinen renders independent claims 5
and 20 unpatentable.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 18, and 19
Appellant submits that since the combination of Guheen and Docter
does not teach the claim limitations of independent claims 1 and 16, the
combination of Guheen, Docter, and Miettinen does not render dependent
claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 18, and 19 unpatentable. (App. Br. 19-20.) As discussed
above, we have found no such deficiencies in the Guheen and Docter
combination for Miettinen to cure. It follows that Appellant has not shown
that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Guheen,
Docter, and Miettinen renders dependent 3, 4, 10, 11, 18, and 19
unpatentable.
VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that:
1. the combination of Guheen and Docter renders claims 1, 2, 6
through 9, and 12 through 17 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
2. the combination of Guheen and Miettinen renders claims 5 and
20 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2009-000741
Application 10/241,893

19
3. the combination of Guheen, Docter, and Miettinen renders
claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 18, and 19 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VII. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

erc
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528