Appeal No. 1998-2602
Application 08/303,158
effectiveness of the advertisement transmission.
Furthermore, Appellant argues [brief, page 8] that “[i]n Von
Kohorn the discount does not result from answering the question,
the discount only results from the additional required step of
purchasing the product or otherwise surrendering the token.
Given the historically low coupon redemption rates, most viewers
in Von Kohorn would not in fact receive a discount or value”.
The Examiner responds [answer, page 6] that “Von Kohorn does
clearly disclose the capability giving to the viewer some rewards
upon answering questions related to the advertisement .” We are
persuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning. We note that the term
“verifying” recited in the claim is not restrictive, especially
in view of the disclosure in the specification which, at page 80,
lines 8 to 11, states that “[t]he specific technique of
establishing that the advertisement is being viewed is secondary.
A variety of other active and passive means may be implemented
that establish a viewer’s presence during the viewing of the
advertisement 1153.” Thus, Von Kohorn does show the broadly
claimed verifying means and method.
Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1
and the grouped claims 7, 10, 14, 16 and 19 (brief, page 4) over
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007