Appeal 2007-0962
Application 09/928,347
cited the reference -- namely to show the advantages of using multiple users’
preferences to recommend content to a user. Indeed, Noll amply teaches
delivering content to users over virtual channels.
In short, we find ample reasons on this record why the skilled artisan
would have combined the teachings of Hosken with Noll. Although
Appellants contend that “[t]he teaching to modify the references must come
from the references themselves” (Br. 11; emphasis added), we note that the
reason to combine references need not be found in the references
themselves, but rather may be found in the knowledge of the skilled artisan
or from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH
& Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366,
80 USPQ2d 1641, 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
987-88, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
For at least these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1. Since Appellants have not separately argued the
patentability of dependent claims 2-8 and 10, these claims fall with
independent claim 1. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Regarding claim 9, Appellants argue that Hosken does not disclose
dynamically allocating user access based on a user’s preferences with that of
the collaborative preferences of the one or more dynamically allocated
communication channels as claimed (Br. 16). The Examiner responds that
Noll discloses a single user content system, and Hosken enables content
recommendations based on multiple user preferences (Answer 23-24).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013