Appeal No. 2002-2174
Application No. 09/263,166 Page 24
We turn next to claim 25. We cannot sustain the rejection
of claim 25 for the same reasons as we reversed the rejection of
claim 16. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is reversed.
We turn next to claim 94. Both appellants (brief, page 31)
and the examiner (answer, page 9) rely upon the same arguments
presented for claim 93. At the outset, we make reference to our
findings, supra, with respect to independent claim 93. We find
from our review of Johnson (col. 8, lines 61-65) that in response
to a user attempt to make a call, the bid incentive information,
including the value of the incentive, is displayed on the
interface to the user. After a routing decision is made by the
system using the least cost software, or by the user, the call is
placed. From this disclosure of Johnson, we find claim 94 to be
met by Johnson. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 94 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
We turn next to claim 95. We cannot sustain the rejection
of claim 95 based upon our reasons for reversing the rejection of
claim 16. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 95 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is reversed.
We turn next to claim 97. Appellants assert (brief, page
19) that the examiner has failed "to explain how and where
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007