Appeal 2007-0987
Application 09/810,992
Examiner to establish a prima facie case of obviousness since all of the
claimed limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied Kadowaki and
Forecast Pro references. With respect to the Kadowaki reference, our review
of Appellants’ arguments reveals that they follow a similar format to those
made with regard to the anticipation rejection of claims 18-20 based on
Forecast Pro.
In other words, Appellants have merely repeated the recited features
of claims 1 and 8, repeated the passages cited by the Examiner from
Kadowaki, and have drawn the conclusion, without more, that the cited
passages do not teach or suggest the claimed features. We find no error, and
there are no persuasive arguments from Appellants that show any error, in
the Examiner’s finding (Answer 5 and 15-17) that Kadowaki’s disclosure
can be reasonably interpreted as describing the arbiter, selection from plural
personalization engines, and personalized content database retrieval features
of appealed claims 1 and 8. Appellants’ arguments with respect to
dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 9, and 12-17, mentioned separately in the principal
Brief, follow the same format as those made with respect to claims 1 and 8,
and are equally unpersuasive.
We also agree with the Examiner that Forecast Pro discloses the
claimed feature of “the arbiter refining and altering a selection based on a
number and type of the profile element.” Appellants’ arguments have
shown no error in the Examiner’s finding (Answer 5) that the designated
items 2 and 3 of Forecast Pro disclose the selection of the particular
forecasting technique, i.e., personalization engine, based on the number and
type of the profile element. In our view, the Examiner is correct in the
assertion that the claimed number and type of profile element could be
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013