Appeal No. 2002-2174
Application No. 09/263,166 Page 22
We turn next to claim 34. Appellants’ arguments (brief,
page 27-30) do not specifically argue claim 32, but rather point
out how the incentive formula is disclosed in the specification.
From our review of claim 34, we are in agreement with the views
of the examiner that:
The reference teaches that the incentive rate value is
determined according to the time at which the consumer
wishes to place a call and the locations of the
consumer and of the party the consumer wishes to call
(col. 1 lines 57-59). This reads on an incentive
formula used to determine the incentive value as a
function of one or more characteristics of the
consumer.
Because of Johnson's disclosure (col. 1, lines 57-59) that the
incentive rate value is determined according to the time of the
call and the originating and terminating points of the call,
which are characteristics of the consumer, we find that Johnson
anticipates claim 34. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
We turn next to claim 35. We cannot sustain the rejection
of claim 35 for the same reasons as we reversed the rejection of
claim 16, supra. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 35, and
claims 36-38, dependent therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007