Appeal No. 2002-2174
Application No. 09/263,166 Page 11
met based on our findings with respect to claim 1. In addition,
the language regarding displaying a first set of one or more
parameters only requires a single parameter, and that this is met
by the price of the bid that has been selected based on the
lowest cost software. We additionally find that the language
regarding the at least one parameter being published on the
network is met by the broadcast of the list of bids to the
Subscriber or end user. In addition, we find that the language
regarding at least one parameter being dependent on one or more
characteristics of the user only requires a single parameter and
a single characteristic. We find that this limitation is met by
Johnson for the reasons set forth by the examiner (answer, page
8), namely, that the time of the call, the location of the
customer and the location of the party being called are
characteristics of the customer; see col. 4, lines 10-15 and col.
5, lines 30-34 and col. 7, lines 45-57). Thus, we do not agree
with appellants (brief, page 26) that Johnson does not disclose
that one or more parameters of the incentive depend on one or
more characteristics of the consumer. From all of the above, we
are not convinced of any error on the part of the examiner in
rejecting claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007