Appeal 2007-1122
Application 09/966,414
on the subscriber's own rating of the item. (Findings of Fact 2, 9.)
Therefore, Payton teaches selecting test data for revising the first
subscriber's profile based on data from a second subscriber's profile.
In addition, we find that Payton teaches 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. Under a reasonable interpretation
of claim 5, items in the subscriber's profile that have not been rated by the
subscriber are insufficient to determine whether they would be favored or
not by the subscriber. (Finding of Fact 3.)
Appellants also argue that "Payton fails to teach revising a first user
profile based on data in a second user profile." (Reply Brief 3.) The plain
language of claim 5 does not require the actual revision of the first user
profile based on a second user profile.3 Instead, claim 5 requires selecting
test data "for revising" the first user profile responsively to data from a
second user profile. Even if claim 5 is interpreted to require revision of the
first user profile based on a second user profile, Payton teaches this feature
as discussed with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, as claimed, the subject matter of claim 5 reads on Payton.
Claims 6 and 8 were not argued separately, and stand or fall together with
claim 5.
With respect to claim 9, we find that Payton teaches a user profile that
includes a narrow description defining target data selections and a broad
description defining non-target data selection. The claim language is broad
3 We note that claim 5 does, however, require modification of the first user's
profile based on feedback from the first user. Payton teaches this feature.
(Findings of Fact 2, 9.)
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013