Appeal No. 2001-1664
Application No. 08/960,787
(iii) for each pair of users in the group determining a
score responsive to identification of a number of items from
the second record requested by one user in the pair, that
were also requested by the other user in the pair;
(iv) for each user allocating one or more group members
as friends for the user on the basis of the scores for pairs
containing that user; and
(v) for each user identifying items of information
responsive both to their having been requested by a friend
of the user and to their not having been requested by the
user.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
de Hond 5,796,395 Aug. 18, 1998
(filed Mar. 11, 1997)
Herz et al. (Herz) 5,835,087 Nov. 10, 1998
(filed Oct. 31, 1995)
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over de Hond in view of Herz.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief (paper no. 14), reply
brief (paper no. 16) and the Examiner’s answer (paper no. 15) for
the respective details thereof.
Reference is also made to paper no. 4 which is a statement
of the rejection adopted by the Examiner as an explanation of the
rejection in the Examiner’s answer at page 3.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007