Appeal No. 2002-0144
Application No. 09/000,759
11-13 and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because, in our view,
the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation.
We agree with appellant that, “[r]ather than being concerned
with modifying the content of target objects, Herz is instead
concerned with reducing the number of target objects presented to
a user” (reply brief-page 5). Accordingly, Herz does not
disclose the claimed “modifying content in the user-specified
data object in accordance with a predetermined filtering
preference if said predetermined selection criterion is
satisfied.” Herz customizes a list of objects presented to a
user by enabling a user access to only those objects of interest
without requiring the user to go through each and every object to
determine those of interest. This is clearly set forth at column
4, lines 37-43, of Herz. While the number of objects presented
to a user is reduced in Herz, it is in no way reasonable to
conclude that this is equivalent to modification of the content
of an object, as required by the instant claims.
One might say that Herz reasonably scans a user-specified
data object for content satisfying a predetermined selection
criterion because a user specifies certain types of objects
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007