Ex Parte Albazz et al - Page 11

           Appeal 2007-2533                                                                        
           Application 09/972,434                                                                  

       1   all of the definitions in that dictionary, particularly the definition that defines a   
       2   relationship as the state of being related or interrelated (FF 03).  Similarly, the     
       3   Appellants provide one definition of the word “define” from that same source as         
       4   being to fix or mark the limits of, but the Appellants fail to indicate that an         
       5   alternate definition shown in that same dictionary is to create on a computer (FF       
       6   04), arguably far more consistent with the contents of a computer file.                 
       7       Thus, we find that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim element      
       8   “defining a relationship between the user and the seller or buyer” is creating on a     
       9   computer a state of relation between the user and the seller or buyer.                  
       10      Frengut creates a state of relation regarding how the user interacts with sellers   
       11  and their advertisements with the user profile that contains information and            
       12  processing rules regarding user preferences and interaction rules with                  
       13  advertisements (FF 05-07).  As broadly claimed, the agreement between the user          
       14  and the seller as to layout and content, i.e., which advertisements are to be served    
       15  to the user’s screen is, in fact, a relationship between the user and the seller based  
       16  on rules (a profile) recognized and stored by the seller in response to a unique        
       17  identifier (step 24) provided by the user’s client machine. As noted above, the         
       18  claim term “relationship” is broad and certainly reads on the agreement to receive      
       19  desired content free along with advertisement and layout chosen based on a user’s       
       20  inputted profile.                                                                       
       21      Thus, the Appellants’ arguments as to claim 1, and claims 2, 6-8, 11-13, and        
       22  16-18, which stand or fall with claim 1, are unpersuasive.                              
       23      We also note that the Appellants have contended that the Examiner failed to         
       24  provide sufficient analysis to support the rejection.  In particular the Examiner has   
       25  not specifically identified the teachings within Frengut that allegedly disclose the    

                                                11                                                 


Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013