Appeal 2007-0635
Application 10/176,598
2. The metric is described in the claim as related to “a total duration of time the
media file is played back.”
3. The Specification does not give the term “related” a meaning different from
its ordinary and customary meanings.
The scope and content of the prior art.
Ward
4. The Examiner found that:
As per claim 17, Ward discloses a method of organizing a plurality of
media files stored in a memory resource comprising the steps of:
attributing a metric to a media file from the plurality of data files,
wherein said metric is related to playback of the media file (col. 2, lines 61-
67; col. 5, lines 6-24; The system orders media files based on their
popularity, the popularity being based on how many times the user played
the media file.);
ranking the media file in comparison to information comprising a
metric attributed to another media file from a second memory resource (col.
3, lines 31-42; The system compares media file metrics and ranks the media
files accordingly.);
updating the memory resource in accordance with the rankings
established in said ranking step (col. 3, lines 31-42; col. 8, lines 20-40; The
rankings are updated for each media file as they are performed.).
Ward further discloses using play patterns of media files as
indications of the user’s preferences for the media files (col. 2, lines 24 and
46-51), 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 7.
5. There appears to be a dispute over the scope of Ward; i.e., whether Ward
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013