Appeal 2007-0962
Application 09/928,347
utilizes specific content requests in conjunction with other users’ collected
evaluations (ratings) and that such a teaching would have been reasonably
combinable with Noll’s system (Answer 14-15, 24-25).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 essentially for
the reasons stated by the Examiner. As the Examiner indicates, Hosken
teaches aggregating both content requests and evaluations of specific
content. In our view, such a teaching would have been reasonably
combinable with the content delivery system of Noll – a system that
effectively connects content requestors to available channels – for the
reasons previously discussed.8
For at least these reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 11 is sustained. Since Appellants have not separately argued the
patentability of dependent claims 12-21, these claims fall with independent
claim 11. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Appellants argue that Hosken does not
disclose (1) using channels; (2) group or joint decision making regarding
provided content; and (3) collating preferences. Appellants also reiterate
that there is no suggestion or motivation to combine the references as the
teaching must come from the references themselves (Br. 17-18). The
Examiner argues, among other things, that Appellants’ arguments with
respect to the “group or joint decision making” function are not
commensurate with the claim language. The Examiner also argues that
collating preferences merely requires collecting preferences – a feature
disclosed in the prior art (Answer 25).
8 See id.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013