Appeal No. 2006-1342
Application No. 09/488,471
the rating data,” appellant argues that this feature is “inherent” in that as new satisfaction ratings
are collected by the users. These new ratings form the updated cumulative business satisfaction
ratings, which when queried by another user are indexed again, i.e., re-indexed. The examiner
questions how it should be understood that the indexing process of the rating data is a
continuous, automatic process and the rating data are not indexed once and the process stops.
It is appellant’s position that it would not be logical to imply, as the examiner does, that
data is indexed once and the process stops. Logical or not, if the original disclosure provides for
this in the description and does not provide for updated cumulative business satisfaction ratings,
causing a re-indexing, then appellant would have failed to show that he had possession of the
invention, as now claimed, at the time of originally filing the application.
At page 15, lines 7 et seq., the original disclosure describes a “self correcting system” in
the sense that “after a certain period of use, the users’ interactive ratings could significantly affect
the ranking of the businesses, and ultimately, lower ranked businesses stand lower chances of
being browsed and thus selected.” If data is indexed once and then the process is stopped, this
would not be a “self correcting” system, as described and claimed. By the description of the
specification (p.15), of ranking being significantly affected “after a certain period of use,” it
appears clear to us that there is support in the original disclosure for updating cumulative
business satisfaction ratings, causing a re-indexing, as now claimed. Moreover, the disclosure
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007