Appeal No. 2002-2174
Application No. 09/263,166 Page 23
We turn next to claim 52. We reverse the rejection of claim
52 because although Johnson discloses that the end user evaluates
the data downloaded from the Moderator (col. 2, lines 32-36);
that the end user may provide direction to the interface unit
(col. 2, line 36), and that the end user may read the bids from
the display screen and make the routing decision (col. 9, lines
15-17), we find no teaching of redeeming the incentive. We are
not persuaded by the examiner's assertion (answer, page 10) that
incentive redemption is well known, as the examiner's position
does not establish that Johnson anticipates claim 52.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 52, and claim 53, dependent
therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
We turn next to claim 24. Appellants assert that the
examiner does not explain how Johnson describes the feature of
the claim. The examiner's position (answer, page 8) is that
Johnson's disclosure provides that the information may be
displayed for evaluation by the end user. We agree, and add that
Johnson's disclosure (col. 2, lines 33-39) that the end user, in
addition to evaluating the display, can choose the carrier or
provide direction to the interface unit, provides a disclosure of
the invention set forth in claim 24. Accordingly, the rejection
of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007