Appeal 2007-1122
Application 09/966,414
enough that the claim term "narrow description" encompasses those items in
the subscriber profile that have been rated by the subscriber and the claim
term "broad description" encompasses those empty spaces in the subscriber
profile for items that will be rated by others. (Finding of Fact 3.)
Therefore, as claimed, the subject matter of claim 9 reads on Payton.
Claim 11 was not argued separately, and stands or falls together with
claim 9.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11. The rejection
of those claims is affirmed.
OTHER ISSUES
We note that there appears to be a lack of antecedent basis for the
term "the recommender" in claim 5. There also appears to be a possible
section 112, second paragraph, indefiniteness issue with respect to "the
recommendations" recited in the second to last line of claim 9 because there
are two prior claim limitations that each recite generating recommendations.
We do not address these issues further in this decision.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013