Appeal 2007-1246
Application 10/014,180
OPINION
Independent method claims 1 and 10 recite the steps of computing a
distance between corresponding symbolic features and aggregating the
distances. Independent system claims 19 and 22 recite a processor
configured to execute the steps of computing a distance and aggregating the
distances. Similarly, independent system claim 20 recites "means for"
performing the above noted steps. Independent claims 21 and 23 recite
program code means for accomplishing the above noted steps. Thus, each of
Appellants' independent claims requires a step of computing a distance
between corresponding symbolic features and a step of aggregating the
distances.
The Examiner asserts (Answer 4) that Bieganski's serendipity control
value equals the claimed distance. The Examiner explains (Answer 5) that
the serendipity control value "is a means to measure or rank the similarities
(i.e., distance) between the items in the user preference data." Further the
Examiner asserts (Answer 4) that Bieganski discloses aggregating the
distances at column 14, lines 32-56. The Examiner explains (Answer 9) that
Bieganski teaches aggregating the distances because "the serendipity-
weighted and filtered recommendation with the serendipity control value . . .
is added to the set of serendipity weighted and filtered recommendations"
(emphasis in original).
Appellants contend (Br. 9 and Reply Br. 2) that Bieganski's
serendipity control value is not equal to the claimed distance between
corresponding symbolic features. Further, Appellants contend (Br. 9-10 and
Reply Br. 3-4) that Bieganski fails to disclose the claimed step of
aggregating the distances. The issues, therefore, are whether the serendipity
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013