Appeal 2007-0962
Application 09/928,347
content preferences from multiple users. The Examiner cites Hosken as
teaching this feature and concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Noll to collate
preferences from multiple users to increase efficiency, provide consistency
with users’ personal interests, and enable a wider variety of content
recommendations to users (Answer 5-6, 23).
Appellants argue that the prior art does not disclose the claimed
dynamic allocation and collation elements as claimed (Br. 10). Additionally,
Appellants argue that it is improper to combine Hosken with Noll since both
references disclose different content delivery methods: Noll provides
channels, while Hosken provides a static list or table of content information
(Br. 10-11). Appellants add that even if the combination was proper, the
combination at best teaches comparing one user’s profile against other
users—not collating preferences as claimed (Br. 11).
Appellants argue that Noll’s content is not dynamically allocated or
retained, but rather merely classified and filtered before it is sent to the user
(Br. 11). Appellants further argue that Noll is silent regarding collating
preferences from multiple users, but rather merely collects content based on
single user preferences (Br. 12-13).
Regarding the secondary reference to Hosken, Appellants contend that
Hosken does not disclose dynamically allocating bandwidth in multiple
channels to which users are allocated access. According to Appellants,
Hosken merely discloses a content referral system tailored to the
personalized interests of a single user (Br. 13-14). Appellants also contend
that Hosken does not disclose collating preferences by multiple users, but
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013