Ex Parte Horvitz et al - Page 4

               Appeal 2007-0209                                                                             
               Application 10/021,621                                                                       
                      a display providing one or more display objects associated with                       
               delivery of one or more messages, the messages being automatically                           
               classified according to a respective priority value; and                                     
                      one or more inputs associated with the display objects to facilitate                  
               adaptation of the user interface to one or more preferences of a user, the one               
               or more inputs includes at least one or more user preferences for assigning a                
               priority value to a voice message based at least in part on acoustical                       
               properties of the voice message.                                                             
               23. A method associated with message delivery, comprising:                                   
                      generating a priority associated with a message;                                      
                      determining an expected loss of non-review of the message at a                        
               current time based at least on the message priority and an expected rate of                  
               lost opportunity for the user resulting from non-review of the message as a                  
               function of time;                                                                            
                      determining an expected cost of outputting the message at the current                 
               time; and                                                                                    
                      alerting a user of the message in response to determining that the                    
               expected loss is greater than the expected cost.                                             

                      Appellants contend that Losee does not anticipate claims 23 through                   
               26 and 34 through 39.  Particularly, Appellants contend that Losee does not                  
               fairly teach or suggest determining an expected rate of lost opportunity to                  
               the user as a function of time, as recited in representative claim 23.  (Br. 6,              
               Reply Br. 6).  Appellants also contend for the same reasons that Losee, taken                
               in combination with Eggleston, does not render claims 27 through 33                          
               unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).  Further,  Appellants contend that                   
               Smith and Badt in various combinations with Aderlind, Marx, Eggleston,                       
               Helfman, Abu Hakima, Wright and Cooper do not render claims 1 through                        
               22 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).  Particularly, Appellants argue                   
               that the proposed combinations do not fairly teach or suggest assigning a                    
               priority value to a voice message based at least in part on acoustical                       

                                                     4                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013