Appeal No. 96-0125 Application 07/878,100 tailored to the specific purchases of a specific consumer” [brief, page 7]. Although appellants’ arguments are not exactly commensurate in scope with the invention of claim 1, and although the examiner has given a reason why Humble’s product promotion would be added to Vela’s system, we agree with appellants that the teachings of Vela and Humble would not have been combined by the artisan to derive the invention of claim 1 absent a desire to achieve the claimed invention in hindsight. The key feature of appellants’ invention is that messages are sent to the customer promoting products based on rules for selecting a product in response to the data indicating the identification of a desired product. Vela never identifies a specific product and products are promoted only in response to the customer’s location. The only basis the examiner has for delivering messages based on the products purchased is Humble’s conventional system for conveying information to the customer after the customer is finished shopping. The examiner’s rationale for incorporating Humble’s teachings into Vela’s system comes from appellants’ disclosure and not from the suggestions of Vela or Humble. 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007