Appeal 2007-0635
Application 10/176,598
section for claims 17-19 and 21-23 above.
The scope and content of the prior art
We incorporate herein the facts under The scope and content of the prior art
of the Facts section for claims 17-19 and 21-23 above and add the following:
1. The Examiner argues that Ward discloses the claimed updating step at “col.
3 [sic, 7], lines 31-42; col. 8, lines 20-40” (Answer 8).
2. Col. 7, lines 31-42 of Ward states the following:
At that point the process is repeated, using the results currently in the play
queue to seed a collaborative filtering request after each list of available
content pieces is returned from the content providers. Upon seeding the play
queue with all meta-categories, a final ranking and culling pass can be
performed, using any of the common playlist manipulation algorithms, and
optionally, a pairing sort of algorithm, to be described in FIGS. 6 and 7.
3. Col. 8, lines 20-40 of Ward states the following:
When the user plays the playlist, the playlist is submitted to the sort
server system 130, which performs the algorithm described in connection
with FIG. 2 to expand all meta-categories into specific content items, by
drawing upon the content available from the user’s locally stored pool and
from streaming content providers. The system the [sic, then] returns the
expanded playlist to the jukebox program, which then uses the playlist like a
standard static playlist. Optionally, when the user expresses dislike for a
particular content item, either by skipping the item or through a rating
system, the system records such instances in the meta-data associated with
the user, i.e., the user profile. Upon resubmission of the playlist to the sort
server, a new playlist now adapted to the expressed tastes of the playlist
listener is generated and the rejected content items are not selected based on
the updated user profile. After the user stops or plays completely through the
playlist, the list is submitted to the sort server to execute a pairing algorithm,
described in connection with in FIGS. 6 and 7, to allow the pairing sort
engine shown in FIG. 6 to further adapt to how the user ordered the playlist.
26
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013