Appeal 2007-0635
Application 10/176,598
4. Appellant does not dispute that Ward teaches a “culling” operation but
disagrees that Ward’s culling operation involves deleting a media file from the
memory source.
Applicant notes that although Ward discloses an operation of “culling” a
content list or the results used to form a play list (see Ward, col. 6, lines 61-
64, and col. 8, lines 20-35), there is no disclosure or suggestion that such a
culling operation will delete a media file (not results as in Ward) from a
memory resource. Moreover, culling a play list is not the same thing as
removing a media file from a memory resource.
5. Col. 6, lines 61-64 of Ward states the following:
At step S3, optionally, it then applies ranking or culling algorithms to the
results, such as randomly removing elements, or only keeping the top N
most popular result items.
6. When users lose interest in a media file on a media playback device, users
will often delete that media file not only from the playlist but from the memory
resource storing it.
Differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
We incorporate herein the facts under Differences between the prior art and
the claims at issue of the Facts section for claims 17-19 and 21-23 above and add
the following.
7. The difference centers on the term “culling” as used in Ward. If in culling
the playlist Ward deletes a media file from the memory resource, then no
difference exists between the claimed subject matter and Ward. If not, then the
difference would be that Ward does not disclose deleting a media file from the
memory resource.
The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
27
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013