Appeal 2006-2635
Application 09/935,287
obvious, to those of ordinary skill in the art, as a convenient means for
identifying particular goods or products."
Lalonde, as discussed supra, implies entering information about the
ad using buttons on a touch tone phone. Lalonde fails to disclose exactly
what format the information typed in by the seller would take. The
information provided by the seller is sent to the IVR. IVR is defined (col. 3,
ll. 64-66) as a computer which stores digital audio scripts and plays back the
scripts in response to digital or touch tone inputs. The only example of how
the IVR is used is set forth by Lalonde at column 5, lines 46-51, where
Lalonde describes the IVR as playing a script asking the seller to press
certain keys on the phone to identify a desired function. In other words,
Lalonde describes using the IVR as a voice-prompt system, as recited in
claim 2. Further, Lalonde states (col. 6, ll. 14-18) that the placing of an ad
involves numerous available options. Since Lalonde gives no further
explanation as to what format the seller might use to supply the information
to the IVR, the skilled artisan would expect the automation using the IVR,
explained supra, to involve a voice-prompt system for the various options.
We would have to resort to speculation to say that the seller would use
something other than a voice-prompt system.
We acknowledge that for each option, the response might be
considered an alphanumeric sequence of a standard identification code.
However, Appellants disclose (specification, p. 6, ll. 15-22) two
embodiments, one with a voice-prompt system, and the other with a standard
identification code (such as a UPC or ISBN), and recite the two
embodiments in claims 2 and 3, respectively. Therefore, we will treat the
limitation of a standard identification code in claims 3 and 23 as different
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013