Appeal 2007-1699
Application 10/165,904
preferences based on the linkage of the plurality of augmented content
information.” The cited section, as noted supra, discusses picking the best
“node” of enhanced content to present to a user, and gives as an example
that “the subtopics of an advertisement might be chosen in accordance with
a user profile” (FF 6, 7). This section illustrates the difference between the
claimed invention and the Schaffer reference. Schaffer is concerned with
selecting the optimal enhanced content to present, taking the user profile as
given, whereas the disclosed and claimed invention is directed to developing
and sharpening the user profile in the first instance. Schaffer does not teach
determining inferences about the user’s interests and preferences, because
Schaffer assumes the existence of the user profile, noting that such a profile
“may be assembled … according to any other known technique for
assembling user profiles” (FF 2, 3, 5).
Because we find that Schaffer does not teach these limitations of
claim 1, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2-11 dependent therefrom.
Independent claim 12 contains many limitations parallel to those of
claim 1. As noted supra, Schaffer fails to teach (at least) the means for
analyzing a degree to which a user queried for additional content
information, as well as the means for linking the viewer profile with one of
the Internet and specialized databases. Independent claim 19, drawn to a
content augmentation device, contains limitations that parallel those in claim
12, which Schaffer does not teach or suggest. We therefore reverse the
rejection of claims 12 and 19, as well as claims 13-18 and 20-24 dependent
therefrom.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013