Appeal No. 2002-2174
Application No. 09/263,166 Page 21
From the disclosure of Johnson, we find no teaching that a
parameter of the displayed second set of incentive parameters
depends on the time, date or location on the network.
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of anticipation of claim 30. The rejection of
claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is therefore reversed.
We turn next to claim 39. We cannot sustain the rejection
of claim 39 for the same reasons as we reversed the rejection of
claim 26. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 39, and claims 40
and 41, dependent therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
We turn next to claim 32. Appellants assert (brief, page
27) that the examiner's position is erroneous. The examiner's
position is found on page 8 of the examiner's answer. From our
review of Johnson, we find from Johnson's disclosure (col. 5,
lines 34 and 35) of different incentives offered based on
different parameters, that the second set of parameters includes
the incentive value. Accordingly, we do not agree with
appellants that claim 32 is not anticipated by Johnson. The
rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is therefore
affirmed.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007