Appeal 2007-1122
Application 09/966,414
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-6, 8-9,
and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). In particular, with respect to independent
claim 1 Appellants argue that "Payton fails to teach modifying a first user
profile based on a second user profile[,] . . . increasing the frequency of
recommendation of a data class without decreasing the frequency of another
data-class[, and] . . . expanding the scope of a first user profile according to
preferences in the second user profile." (Br. 7-8.) Regarding independent
claim 5, Appellants assert that "Payton fails to teach selecting test-data for
revising a first user's profile based on data from a second user's profile[, and]
. . . primarily selecting the test-data for which the first user's profile is
insufficient to determine whether the test-data would be favored or
disfavored." (Br. 9.) With respect to independent claim 9, Appellants argue
that "Payton fails to teach a user profile that includes a narrow description
defining target data selections and a broad description defining non-target
data selections." (Br. 11.)
Reviewing the findings of facts cited above, we do not agree. In
particular, we find that the limitations of independent claims 1, 5, and 9 read
on the reference of Payton.
Regarding claim 1, we find that Payton teaches modifying a first user
profile based on a second user profile. In particular, the system of Payton
produces a list of recommended items for a subscriber based on the ratings
of other subscribers. (Findings of Fact 3, 4, 7.) The list of recommended
items is used to update the subscriber profile. (Findings of Fact 5, 6, 8.)
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013