Appeal No. 2002-2174
Application No. 09/263,166 Page 18
(brief, page 23) that the examiner does not explain how the
limitations of claim 22 are met by Johnson. From our review of
the examiner's answer, we find the examiner's assertion (answer,
page 8) that the "display of parameters in the bid information
. . . would necessarily teach claim 13" is misplaced as the
examiner does not address how claim 22 is met by Johnson. From
our review of Johnson, we find that Johnson discloses (col. 2,
lines 17-19) that the Subscriber downloads the bid information
into the routing tables of the least cost routing software in the
switch. Johnson further discloses (col. 2, lines 26-31) that in
a different class of service, carriers will offer an economic
incentive by means of a low rate or a stated discount. Thus,
from the teachings of Johnson, we find a first parameter of bid
price, and also find that incentives such as a reduced rate or
stated discount are provided. Johnson further discloses (col. 5,
lines 34 and 35) that the economic incentive could be a
combination of rate and another incentive. From this disclosure
of Johnson, we find that the bid information displayed by the
interface will include a second set of one or more parameters.
From all of the above, we find that Johnson anticipates claim 22.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
is affirmed.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007