Appeal No. 2002-2174
Application No. 09/263,166 Page 5
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose
every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The examiner's position (answer, pages 3 and 4) is that the
moderator of Johnson meets the claimed incentive information
computer, and that Johnson's list of carrier bids meets the
claimed selecting mechanism. The examiner asserts (answer, pages
4 and 5) that Johnson's disclosure of the Subscriber downloading
the bid information meets the claimed "publishing the selecting
mechanism." The examiner further asserts (answer, page 3) that
the value of the incentive meets the claimed “match criteria.”
The examiner additionally asserts (id.) that Johnson's list of
Carrier bids meets the claimed incentive existence message.
Appellants assert (brief, page 14) that there is no
selection mechanism of an incentive taught in Johnson, but rather
a list of Carriers who provide bid information to the Moderator.
Appellants argue that this does not disclose a selection
mechanism, because the Subscriber selects Carriers, not bids. It
is further asserted (brief, page 15) that Johnson does not
disclose that the value of an incentive is based on meeting a set
of one or more match criteria, or that the incentives have a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007