Appeal No. 2002-2174
Application No. 09/263,166 Page 27
At the outset, we reverse the rejection of claims 3, 26, 54,
57, 72, 79, 80 and 84-91 and 99 in view of our reversing the
rejection of claims from which these claims depend, and because
there is no evidence in the record to establish the obviousness
of modifying Johnson to make up for the basic deficiencies of
the reference.
We turn next to claim 15. We reverse the rejection of claim
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Johnson does not teach that
the incentive existence message includes an incentive icon.
We turn next to claim 42. We reverse the rejection of claim
42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because although Johnson discloses
displaying or publishing the incentive, Johnson does not disclose
clipping of the incentive. We find no teaching or suggestion in
the record that would have suggested to an artisan "clipping" the
bid material displayed on the interface.
We turn next to claim 43. We reverse the rejection of claim
43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons as we reversed
the rejection of claim 16 and because there is no suggestion in
the record that would have suggested to an artisan the provision
of a consumer information computer and associated database for
storing consumer identification information. Because the
consumer's phone number is used for determining the relevant
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007