Appeal 2006-2855
Application 09/774,727
moderated conduit between the community organization and the user as in
Coueignoux (Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 4-5).
Appellant also argues that there is no motivation to combine the
references. Appellant contends, among other things, that because Lang
already discusses security measures, there is no explicit suggestion that an
additional security measure (i.e., requiring a party’s authorization for which
the reputation information is based) would be beneficial (Br. 9-11; Reply Br.
5-6). The Examiner responds that the skilled artisan would have ample
suggestion to modify Lang as noted in the rejection in view of the
advantages of ensuring transmission of confidential information only upon
consent as suggested by Coueignoux (Answer 16-18).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 9,
and 15. In determining whether a prior art reference constitutes analogous
art, we consider “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved." In
re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In our view, Coueignoux is within Appellant’s field of endeavor --
information retrieval. Coueignoux discloses a system that enables a sender
to retrieve certain information pertaining to a user only if the user consents
to publishing that information to the sender. Although an agent (i.e., the
discovery and exploitation engine 14 (DEP)) essentially operates as an
intermediary between the sender and the user as Appellant indicates, the user
ultimately maintains control over which fact(s) are disclosed to the sender
(Coueignoux, col. 18, ll. 50-60; col. 6, ll. 45-49, 59-62; col. 13, ll. 43-53).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013