Appeal No. 2001-1664
Application No. 08/960,787
Appellant further argues (id. at page 7) that “[s]ince
neither Herz nor De Hond teaches nor suggests a second record
. . ., it is evident that they cannot therefore teach or suggest
this third step which makes explicit use of said second record.”
Appellant also argues (brief at page 7 and 8) that neither Herz
nor de Hond teaches the concept of creating the recited “friends”
using the score, and creating a set of items of information
responsive to a user’s request, by identifying those items of
information having been already requested by a friend of that
user, though not by the user himself.
The Examiner responds to these arguments at pages 4, 5 and 6
of the Examiner’s answer. However, the Examiner merely
reiterates his position explained in the statement of rejection.
We agree with the Appellant’s position. The de Hond
reference does not create the recited second record indicative
of the items of information responsive to their having been
requested from the information system on more than one occasion
by the same user. It may be possible to create such a record by
the method disclosed by de Hond, however, de Hond does not have
a need for creating such a record; or a need for the recited
subsequent steps which make use of such a record. Consequently,
the recited concept of determining a score based on the second
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007