Appeal 2007-0962
Application 09/928,347
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9. We agree with
the Examiner that the collective teachings of Noll and Hosken reasonably
suggest dynamically allocating user access to the dynamically-allocated
channels as claimed giving the limitations their broadest reasonable
interpretation. First, Noll’s targeting content based on the user’s preferences
and limiting user access to only those virtual channels based on the available
bandwidth in effect allocates user access to dynamically-allocated channels.
Our previous discussion of Noll applies equally here and we incorporate that
discussion by reference.6 Although Noll does not disclose matching
collaborative preferences as claimed, Hosken amply discloses
recommending content based on collaborative preferences.7 In our view, the
collective teachings of Noll and Hosken reasonably would have suggested to
the skilled artisan allocating user access based on matching collaborative
preferences as claimed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 is therefore
sustained.
Regarding independent claim 11, Appellants argue, among other
things, that the prior art does not disclose a content engine aggregating the
specific content requests and requestor evaluations of specific content as
claimed. According to Appellants, Noll provides content to a single user
based on their individual preferences, and Hosken compares one user’s
profile to another user’s profile such that suggestions are made to one
individual user (Br. 17-18). The Examiner argues that Hosken discloses a
content engine that aggregates actions and behaviors of multiple users and
6 See pages 6-7, supra, of this opinion.
7 See id. at 7-8.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013