Appeal No. 2006-1544
Application 10/024,621
anticipated by Maloney unpersuasive, it follows that the examiner’s
rejection of those claims will be sustained.
The next rejection for our review is that of claims 2, 3, 7, 8,
16, 28, 37 through 42, 54, 55, 57, 58, 63, 68 and 69 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maloney in view of Shim. In this
instance, the examiner has recognized that Maloney does not
specifically teach using a subject’s astrological horoscope sign as
one of the elements of user information collected in building a
personalized user profile to be used in placing the user in a
customer profile category and ultimately for recommending beauty
advice or a beauty product to the user based on the collected
information. To address this difference, the examiner turns to Shim,
urging that it discloses a method and system for providing
advertisements and sales coupons over a network or the Internet,
wherein consumers are classified based on personal profile
information into a type grouping (Fig. 8) and where the selected
advertisements and/or sales coupons are sent based on such grouping
classification. The personal profile information collected in Shim,
like in Maloney, includes items relating to finances, hobbies,
social activities, physical characteristics and emotional or
character type, wherein the character type includes or is derived
from input of information such as a subject’s western or oriental
zodiac sign, blood type, birthday, etc. (see, e.g., pages 9 and 10
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007