Appeal 2007-0635
Application 10/176,598
play list (see Ward, col. 8, lines 20-40). This calculation does not consider
‘popularity metrics based on time-related criteria’ as stated by the Examiner. The
disclosed operations of Ward only identifies whether a media file was played (not
when the media file was played as indicated by a timestamp as in Claim 10) and
modifies a play list in view of such information.” Appeal Br. 6. Emphasis in
original.
The difficulty with this argument is that it does not take into account the fact
that giving claim 2 the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification
as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is not limited
to using a popularity metric which ranks media files according to how long they
have been played. The claim calls for using popularity metrics that are
proportional to a total amount of playback time. In other words, the claim does not
limit ranking the media files by “a total amount of playback time,” associated with
a timestamp or not. The claim encompasses the Ward method in those instances
where some of the media files being ranked are played to their entirety while the
rest are not played at all. The timestamp for indicating a last playback time of a
corresponding media file would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art.
Furthermore, given that associating duration with a media file on a media
playback device is generally well known and that a media file’s duration may be
considered a timestamp, associating a timestamp with each of the popularity
metrics such that the timestamp for indicating a last playback time of a
corresponding media file would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013