Appeal 2007-0635
Application 10/176,598
including manual intervention detected during playing of media files such as
skipping, or opting to not listen to, media files (col. 8, lines 28-31) and
listening to the media files (col. 7, lines 40-47).
Answer 3.
6. There appears to be a dispute over the scope of Ward; i.e., whether Ward
suggests ranking media files found on media playback devices according to how
long a user has played a media file, notwithstanding that it indisputably discloses
ranking media files according to the number of times a file has been played. This
comes through in the debate over the difference between the claimed method and
Ward. See below.
Differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
7. The Examiner characterizes the difference between Ward and the claimed
method as follows:
Ward does not expressly disclose the popularity metrics being proportional
to a total amount of playback time that the user plays back a corresponding
one of the media files. However, since Ward does teach monitoring user play
patterns of media files, particularly, whether or not a user listens to a media
file, Ward does teach the popularity metrics being proportional to a total
amount of times a user plays back a media file. Therefore, Ward already has
the means with which to measure a total amount of playback time.
Answer 3-4. Emphasis added.
8. Appellant argues that
Ward is directed towards an operation of modifying play lists (for the
playback of audio and video files) in view of how popular such files are. The
reference discloses that the system reports to a user, "that a user has listened
to an item," (Ward, col. 7, lines 40-42), which such an item is on the play
list. The specifics of what is reported to is determined by, "when the user
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013