Appeal No. 96-0667
Application 08/061,249
While the examiner takes the position that billing the
cost of advertising associated with each selected pay telephone
is not a patentable distinction over the prior art because the
type of, or frequency of, billing is merely "a contractual
agreement set between two parties" [answer, page 4], we agree
with appellant that "[t]his is a process step defined in the
claims and not a contractual agreement" [brief, page 9].
Especially in view of any suggestion by the applied references to
render a statement regarding the cost of advertising associated
with individually selected pay telephones and in view of the
advantages obtained by the instant claimed invention in terms of
cost effectiveness information for business operators regarding
advertising at individual pay telephone locations, the examiner's
contention that the method of billing is simply an obvious
contractual agreement between parties appears to be founded on
impermissible hindsight employing appellant's disclosure as a
guide.
Hird is applied by the examiner with regard to claims 7
through 12 to show "smart" pay telephones and while we agree that
it would have been obvious to apply the teachings Davis and/or
Smith to "smart" pay telephones, Hird does not provide for the
deficiencies of Davis and Smith regarding rendering a statement
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007