Appeal 2007-0954
Application 09/999,074
To this end, users’ profiles are first developed (Guheen, Fig. 80, Step
2310). Fig. 81 of Guheen details the method employed to create these user
profiles. Specifically, a variety of user information is collected and placed
in a database (Guheen, Fig. 81, Steps 2320-21). In our view, these database
entry functions alone fully meet a workflow performing a first task on an
identity profile as claimed. Next, users’ buying patterns are estimated for a
particular item each time the user uses the system. Users’ current activities
are then logged and entered into the database (Guheen, Fig. 81, Steps 2322-
23). These steps, in our view, reasonably constitute a second subflow of the
first workflow that performs a second task as claimed.
After the user profile is developed, the system then displays an item
for purchase with a set of features based on the user profile, the presentation
of which is customized based on the user profile. Moreover, web content
can be matched to specific user profiles (Guheen, col. 210, l. 32 – col. 211, l.
46; Figs. 79-81).
In short, at least this embodiment in Guheen anticipates representative
claim 1.8 Accordingly, we will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of this
claim solely on the teachings of Guheen. We reach this conclusion
reiterating that obviousness rejections can be based on references that
happen to anticipate the claimed subject matter. Meyer, 599 F.2d at 1031,
202 USPQ at 179. Moreover, we may rely on fewer references than the
Examiner in affirming a multiple-reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
8 We note that this example is merely exemplary of Guheen’s use of identity
profiles. In fact, Guheen discloses other embodiments that automatically
customize user interfaces based on user profiles. See, e.g., Figs. 68 and 76-
78 and accompanying text.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013