Appeal No. 2006-0531
Application No. 09/932,070
Claims 1 through 9 and 11 through 13 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies
upon Cluts in view of Looney as to claims 1 through 5, 9 and 11
through 13. The examiner adds Dunning as to claims 6 through 8.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief (no reply brief has been
filed) for appellants’ positions, and to the answer for the
examiner’s positions.
OPINION
At least for the reasons set forth by the examiner in the
answer, we sustain the rejections of all claims on appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Because we find the teachings and suggestions
in Cluts more compelling than even the examiner appears to
recognize, the examiner’s additional reliance upon Looney appears
to be cumulative to those already taught in Cluts.
Independent claim 1 requires the association of the claimed
attribute values with respective information units. There is
also recited automatically randomly selecting and presenting the
information units whose corresponding attribute value meets a
given criterion. This selection and presentation is stated to be
in the form of a negative limitation, that is, without
interaction by a user.
At least with respect to those portions of Cluts
specifically relied upon by the examiner (column 4, lines 38
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007