Appeal 2007-1699
Application 10/165,904
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Eichstaedt US 6,654,735 B1 Nov. 25, 2003
Schaffer WO 01/13264 A2 Feb. 22, 2001
Claims 1-3, 6-15, 17-22 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as being anticipated by Schaffer.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in his rejection because
Schaffer does not teach analyzing user queries and determining a degree to
which the user queried for more information; inferring values about the user
from the user queries; or determining inferences about the user’s interests
and preferences (Br. 8, 9). The Examiner contends that Schaffer,
particularly the section on creating a customized piece of enhanced data
content (Answer 5-6), discloses the limitations of the claims.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
ISSUE
The principal issue in the appeal before us is whether the Examiner
erred in holding that Schaffer analyzes user queries, infers values about a
user, and determines inferences about a user’s interests and preferences in
the manner claimed by Appellants.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013