Appeal 2007-1699
Application 10/165,904
from a plurality of augmented content information (FF 2, 3, 5; Reply Br. 2-
3).
The Examiner cites pages 5-6 of Schaffer as allegedly teaching
“analyzing user queries and determining a degree to which the user queried
for additional content information.” This section describes in general terms
how Schaffer creates a “customized piece of enhanced data content,” which
is additional information associated with a media selection accessed by a
user, by evaluating “nodes” of information and choosing the best one (FF 6).
Schaffer, however, contains no teaching that user queries are analyzed as a
basis for choosing the best node. The Examiner argues that because
“‘choosing’ inherently requires analysis of the data,” Schaffer’s disclosure
of choosing between potential nodes of enhanced content corresponds to
“analyzing user queries” (Answer 11). Schaffer’s analysis here, however,
amounts to analysis of the (preset) user history of accessed media selections
in order to select enhanced content to present to a user, not an analysis of
user queries for said enhanced content. Schaffer thus fails to teach this claim
limitation.
The Examiner cites page 6, lines 1-5 of Schaffer as allegedly meeting
the limitation of “inferring values about the user from the user queries for
additional content.” This is the same section relied upon the Examiner
supra, concerned with evaluating nodes and choosing the “best.” Schaffer
contains no teaching of inferring values about a user, and the Examiner has
no rebuttal to Appellants’ challenge of this citation in the Brief.
The Examiner cites page 6, lines 1-9 of Schaffer in an attempt to meet
the limitation of “determining inferences about the user’s interests and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013