Appeal No. 2001-1664
Application No. 08/960,787
The Examiner gives a detailed explanation of the rejection
of claim 1 at pages 4-6 of paper no. 4. The Examiner concludes
(id. at page 6) that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to
integrate De Hond’s system for publishing and searching interests
of individual with Herz et al.’s customized electronic
identification of desirable objects to join groups of user or
friends in distributed communication environment to interact with
each other, identify selected or non selected items within the
group and also to point some items [that] are not selected by
others to make information retrieval system more user friendly
and interactive.”
Appellant argues (brief at page 5) that, contrary to the
Examiner’s assertion, de Hond does not generate, or make use of,
a second record as recited in claim 1. Appellant further argues
(id. at page 6) that “[f]urthermore, Herz also neither teaches,
discloses, nor in any other form suggests a step involving use of
a record indicative of items of information responsive to their
having been requested from the information systems on more than
one occasion by the same user [that is, the use of the recited
second record].”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007