Appeal No. 2003-0293
Application No. 09/472,197 Page 19
their computer. In addition, we find an IVR system to be
advantageous because it provides a spoken word to the consumer,
instead of the consumer having to read the advertisement. In
sum, we find that the examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness that has not been successfully rebutted by
appellants. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 89 and 90 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 88 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Scroggie in view of Jermyn and
Laor. Appellants present no separate arguments with respect to
claim 88, and state (brief, page 3) that claim 88 stands or falls
with claim 87. However, as claim 88 stands rejected under a
separate ground of rejection than claim 87, we separately address
the rejection of claim 88. The examiner's position is cogently
set forth on pages 6 and 7 of the answer.
From our review of the prior art, we make reference to our
findings, supra, with respect to Scroggie, Jermyn, and Csaszar
and affirm the rejection of claim 88 for the same reasons we
affirmed the rejection of claims 85 and 87. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 88 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007