Appeal 2007-2241
Application 09/768,990
1 under appeal. The Examiner has never explained which of the two rejections
2 set forth in the prior Office action was determined to be overcome by the
3 amendment. The statement in the Final Rejection that the amendment was
4 sufficient to overcome the prior rejection is sufficiently unclear that the
5 possibility exists that the Examiner determined the amendment to be
6 sufficient to overcome the prior 103 rejection.
7 Assuming this is the case, we are of the view that the Examiner should
8 step back and re-assess the patentability of the claims over Alberts and Tso
9 in light of the principles on the law of obviousness recently articulated in
10 KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). To
11 assist the Examiner, we make the following comments, using claim 1, supra,
12 as representative of the claims on appeal.
13 Alberts discloses delivering time-significant advertising content to
14 users over a network, such as the internet.
15 Alternatively, an advertiser may want a concentration or
16 intensification of ads at particular times, perhaps in response to a
17 profile of users, e.g., different times for children versus adults, or for
18 people accessing the site from home versus work.
19 Col. 1, ll. 43-48. Alberts uses an advertising database on a database engine
20 (which communicates with an ad server to serve up an ad in response to a
21 request made by a user on the internet; col. 3, ll. 18-28, Fig. 1) that contains
22 tables with “information indicating parameters for the display of ads” (col. 3,
23 ll. 31-33) that can include “stop/start information for when the ad is to run”
24 (col. 3, ll. 41-42). The information, such as stop/start information, that is
25 used to trigger the delivery of an ad is determined based on statistics the ad
26 server receives on how often ads are served and how often viewers click on
27 them (Alberts, col. 4, ll. 4-26).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013