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.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007