Appeal No. 2003-1726
Application No. 09/460,450
Turning to the First Action, we find that the examiner
appears to equate Perlman's hierarchical arrangement of database
identifiers with the claimed hierarchical structure of elements.
However, claim 22 requires that one of the elements that are
arranged in the hierarchical structure is the device to which
content is distributed. None of the database identifiers
qualifies as a device to which content is distributed.
Furthermore, claim 22 recites content identifiers which indicate
content to be provided to the device. Since none of the
identifiers of Perlman has an identifier which indicates content
to be provided thereto, Perlman's identifiers cannot be the
claimed elements, one of which is the device. Last, since
Perlman discloses no other hierarchical arrangement, the claimed
step of storing in a database a number of elements as a
hierarchical structure is not disclosed by Perlman. Also, as
Perlman fails to disclose the content identifiers as claimed, the
steps of referencing the hierarchical structure to generate a
profile, the profile containing content identifiers indicating
content to be provided to the device, and causing the content
indicated by the profile to be provided to the device, are not
disclosed by Perlman.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007