Appeal No. 2005-1804 6
Application No. 08/882,197
both located at the client computer rather than at the content
provider as claimed. Appellants also argue that there is no
motivation to modify O’Toole with Davis except to recreate the
claimed invention in hindsight. Appellants also contend that the
examiner has improperly relied on what is old and well known in
the art to support the rejection [brief, pages 5-13].
The examiner responds that the smart digital offer object of
O’Toole corresponds to the claimed first agent and that profile
information, the user rule page, is received from the client
computer and sent to trusted servers. The examiner asserts that
since the profile information is information deemed significant
to the trusted servers, then the smart digital offer object
functions as the first agent having a triggering program to
filter information and to determine whether the information is
significant. The examiner also responds that the smart digital
object in O’Toole conforms to certain rules regarding how
customization is to occur depending on profile details. The
examiner also asserts that the content provider or server in
O’Toole comprises a user rule page, released profile information,
and a rule book, that is, rules governing how to target content
to a user based on his/her profile. Finally, the examiner notes
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007