Appeal 2007-2355
Application 10/006,952
After carefully examining the record before us, we find the weight of
the evidence supports the Examiner’s position. In particular, we find
Appellant has narrowly focused on the automated matchmaking embodiment
taught by Hendrey (See e.g., Hendrey, col. 14, ll. 54-59). However, as
pointed out by the Examiner, Hendrey expressly teaches an alternate
embodiment where the matchmaker may be a person:
In one embodiment the matchmaker 107 may be automated.
However, in alternate embodiments matchmaker 107 may be
partially or entirely a person using a telecommunication device
and having access to distance information provided by
telecommunication infrastructure 120.
(Hendrey, col. 12, ll. 53-56).
Hendrey teaches an embodiment where a list of possible
matches (i.e., callees) is sorted by proximate distance from the device:
Next, in step 703, matchmaker 107 accesses user attribute
profile information 131 and creates a list of the best matches
between the initiator and other users who have registered with
the matchmaker 107. This list may be sorted in order of best
match first for later processing, or may be sorted by proximate
distance of possible matches.
(Hendrey, col. 10, ll. 1-6).
The invention may use any matchmaking process responsive to
both attributes and distance. As a first example, potential
matches could alternately be sorted by distance and then
selected in distance order responsive to meeting a minimum
match score.
(Hendrey, col. 12, ll. 6-11).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013