Appeal No. 2007-0220
Application No. 09/982,640
2 of Skillen. To refine the initially returned search results, they utilize a
plurality of times the same set of fuzzy logic of claims 23 and 37. No
arguments are presented to us in the principal Brief on appeal as to
dependent claims 4, 9, 14 through 16, 21, 22, 28 through 30, 35, 36, 40, 41,
and 44.
Although most of these initial remarks in this opinion relate to the
rejection of various claims over Skillen, they do apply to each of the three
separately stated rejections of the claims on appeal. Likewise, to the extent
the Examiner has not addressed Appellant’s arguments in the principal Brief
on appeal to certain dependent claims relating to Skillen or Loeb, this
appears to be either an oversight or the Examiner is relying upon the stated
rejection effectively to respond to any additional remarks in the Briefs. We
have identified certain dependent claims not argued by Appellant with
respect to the rejection of Skillen and have addressed those that have been
argued.
As to Loeb, Figures 1 through 3 of this reference show a consumer or
customer of representative dependent claim 6 on appeal operating with a
central controller 110, the details of which are set forth in Figures 2 and 3 in
a query response dialog arrangement. Figures 2 and 3 show consumer
databases and a plurality of duplicate, even redundant servers such as the
search server and hot swap server as well as a database in a server farm and
presentation to a user server farm. Figure 4 relates to a consumer database
to which the artisan may attribute various demographics information.
Figures 6 and 7 relate to publisher and fulfillment house data structures and
their respective databases with respective contact points and address
information correlated to respective trade magazines or items to be sold to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013