Appeal No. 2007-0220
Application No. 09/982,640
qualified users, customers, or consumers. Because Loeb teaches a dialog
that may be interactive between the user or consumer to effectively refine by
successive usages the nature of the information sought from either party, at
least two levels of search results are depicted in Figure 8, shown in Figure 9,
and shown in more detail in Figure 10 with examples given in various parts
in Figure 11. The ability of the systems to update or refine the searches and
qualifications of consumers is depicted in Figures 12 and 13.
The concept of a consumer/customer is discussed in the paragraph at
column 1, lines 42 through 57 to the point of even discussing advertisers and
sales or fees associated with the process. Of importance here is the ability to
target an audience for specific trade publications (also summarized at
column 15, lines 21 through 24) such as to elicit various demographics
information. Advertising may proceed to various consumers and
refinements thereof according to the discussion at column 9 outlined by the
Examiner in the Answer. At least according to the teachings at columns 11
and 12, a certain market analysis and demographic approaches to matching a
consumer database with magazine databases associated with trade
publications are taught. The nature of the algorithmic approaches appears in
Loeb to be more deductive than any other approach.
Our earliest remarks in this opinion relate to the features of dependent
claims 2 and 7 argued by Appellant with respect to the rejection relying
upon Loeb. Likewise, we have addressed the algorithmic recitations of
dependent claims 4, 9, 41, and 44. Other than independent claims 11 and 25,
no arguments are presented in the Brief and Reply Brief as to any dependent
claim depending from these independent claims according to the rejection
under Loeb.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013