Appeal No. 2003-0293
Application No. 09/472,197 Page 12
incentive, and from Laor's teaching of transmitting electronic
coupons using cookies.
Nor are we persuaded by appellants' assertion (reply brief,
page 4) that since Scroggie clearly does not disclose identifying
a particular computer, but rather identifies a consumer by an e-
mail address, and since Laor teaches the identification of a
computer, Laor cannot be combined with Scroggie. For the reasons
discussed, supra, we find that Scroggie also identifies both the
user's Zip code and IP address. Thus, because we do not agree
with appellants that Scroggie does not identify a particular
computer, we do not agree with appellants’ conclusion that the
teaching of Scroggie and Laor cannot be combined.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 85 and 86
which has not been successfully been rebutted by appellants.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 85 and 86 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 87 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Scroggie in view of Jermyn. The
examiner’s position (answer, page 5) is that Scroggie fails to
disclose a field for specifically storing a purchase behavior
classification based upon purchase history. To overcome this
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007