Appeal 2007-1699
Application 10/165,904
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The
Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. KSR Int’l. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d
1385, 1396 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329,
1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of
coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellant. Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. Thus, the Examiner must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of record, but
must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support
the Examiner’s conclusion.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in holding claim 1 to be
anticipated by Schaffer, because Schaffer fails to teach or suggest analyzing
user queries and determining a degree to which the user has queried for
additional content information; inferring values about the user from the user
queries for additional content and to augment the additional content
information; updating the augmented content information to at least one of
the user history, internet and specialized databases; or determining
inferences about the user’s interests and preferences based on the linkage of
the plurality of augmented content information, as required by the claim (Br.
8, 9).
We agree with Appellants. The critical deficiency of Schaffer with
respect to the claimed invention is that Schaffer creates enhanced content
from a (previously built) user profile, rather than building a user history
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013