Appeal 2007-0962
Application 09/928,347
In operation, POP client server 80 receives virtual channels 124
broadcast from the network operations center (NOC) 18. The POP client
server, in turn, propagates those virtual channels that have actually been
requested by at least one client 20 to user machine 18 (Noll, ¶¶ 0076, 0044;
Fig. 11).
Significantly, the POP client server in Noll also determines the
bandwidth capacity of the user machine 18. Based on this determination,
only those virtual channels that do not exceed the available bandwidth are
propagated to the user machine (Noll, ¶¶ 0077-78; Fig. 12).4 In our view,
such a selective allocation of bandwidth to accommodate transmitted virtual
channels in Noll fully meets the dynamic bandwidth allocation and user
access allocation limitations of claim 1. Appellants’ arguments to the
contrary are simply not commensurate with the scope of the claim language.
Although Noll indicates that content is targeted based on a single
user’s profile, we see no reason why the skilled artisan would not have
combined the teachings of Hosken – a system that recommends content
based on multiple users’ preferences – with Noll essentially for the reasons
stated by the Examiner.
Hosken delivers content recommendations to a user based on
combined profiling data collected from multiple users. Specifically,
Hosken’s system utilizes (1) explicit profiling data provided by the user, and
(2) implicit profiling data derived by the referral system 20 to provide
customized recommendations for particular users. Such profiling data is
4 See also Noll, ¶ 0066 (noting that content scheduler 138 may schedule
content based on the bandwidth necessary to receive the content (e.g.,
scheduling high-bandwidth content together)).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013