Appeal No. 2005-1804 8
Application No. 08/882,197
the artisan to acquire information about the user’s computer
automatically [column 9, lines 41-45]. As noted by the examiner,
claim 3 recites that the user rule page includes at least one of
a hardware profile, a software profile, and a user profile. As
also noted by the examiner, such recitation only requires a prior
art teaching of any one or more of these three profiles. O’Toole
teaches the user rule page which is stored at the server as
including user profile information. Davis teaches the user rule
page containing at least user profile information as well as a
hardware profile of the user’s computer. With respect to
appellants’ arguments regarding the claimed second agent, we
agree with the examiner that O’Toole [column 10, lines 18-21] and
Davis [column 14, lines 41-52] each teaches that information at
the content provider is updated so that new content sent to the
client computer can be intelligently selected for each client
computer.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of
the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 3-5, 17, 18, 22-25, 27-29, 32, 36, 40, 41, 45-49
and 54-57 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007