Appeal No. 2002-2174
Application No. 09/263,166 Page 12
We turn next to independent claim 55. As claim 55 requires
publishing a selection mechanism, we cannot sustain the rejection
of claim 55. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 55 is reversed
for the same reasons as we reversed the rejection of claim 1. As
claims 56, 58-60, 63-69, 71, 73, 75-78 and 81-83 depend
therefrom, the rejection of claims 56, 58-60, 63-69, 71, 73,
75-78 and 81-83 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
We turn next to independent claim 93. The examiner's
position is set forth on page 9 of the examiner's answer.
Appellants assert (brief, page 31) that an incentive formula is
used to determine bid value as a function of one or more
characteristics of the consumer, and that the incentive feature
is not taught by Johnson. It is further asserted that the
feature that the incentive existence message is displayed when
the consumer computer accesses the location of publication on the
network of the existence message, is not taught by Johnson. It
is argued (id.) that the examiner's rejection is faulty because:
Johnson et al. does not disclose that a first set of
one or more parameters of the particular incentive on
the consumer computer when the consumer computer
accesses one of the locations containing the selecting
mechanism of the particular incentive, applies to the
feature displaying the incentive existence message when
a consumer accesses one of the locations on the network
where an incentive existence message is published.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007