Appeal 2007-0635
Application 10/176,598
been played. For example, take two media files, A and B where media file A has
been played once to completion and media file B has not been played at all. In
accordance with Ward’s popularity metric, media files A and B would be ranked in
an ascending or descending order, depending on order preference. In this instance,
the application of the Ward metric amounts to an application of a metric that is
based on how long a media file has been played. That is to say, applying Ward’s
metric to a set of media files consisting of a media file played to completion and a
media file not played at all is related to a metric that is based on how long the
media files have been played. In this example, the resulting order of the media files
from using either algorithm would be the same.
To repeat, the Ward method applies a metric which is related to a popularity
metric based on how long a media file has been played because the Ward metric
operates in a way similar to that claimed in those instances where a set of media
files consists of a media file having not been played at all and another having been
played to completion. Claim 17 does not limit applying the metric to any particular
set of media files, and thus covers the aforementioned situation. Accordingly, the
subject matter claim of 17 overlaps that which Ward discloses, thus encompassing
obvious subject matter.
Regarding the argument that Ward does not teach the “a total duration of
time the media file is played back,” again, the claim calls for popularity metrics
related to a total amount of playback time that a user plays back a media file. It is
not essential in meeting the claim that the prior art teach “a total duration of time
the media file is played back.” All that is necessary to meet the claim is that the
24
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013