Appeal No. 1998-0630
Application 08/231,655
e) repeating steps b, c and d for each item of information to be presented to said particular
user; and
f) displaying the items of information to the user in accordance with their ranking scores.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Yourick 4,775,935 Oct. 4, 1988
Chang et al. (Chang) 5,321,833 Jun. 14, 1994
(filed Aug. 29, 1990)
Scannell et al. (Scannell) 5,377,354 Dec. 27, 1994
(effectively filed Aug. 13, 1990)
Sheth, B., Maes, P., PROCEEDINGS OF THE 9TH IEEE CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR
APPLICATIONS, "Evolving Agents for Personalized Information Filtering," pp. 345 to 352 (March 5,
1993) (Sheth).
Claims 1 to 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies upon Scannell in view of Sheth, Yourick, and Chang.
Rather than repeat the positions of appellants and the examiner, reference is made to the Brief
and the Answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the examiner has failed to make
out a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In reaching our conclusion on the issues
raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied
references, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we find that the examiner has failed to meet his burden of adequately showing that Scannell in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007