Appeal No. 2003-0050
Application 09/240,208
We now consider the rejection of the claims based on the
teachings of Allard and Dedrick. With respect to independent
claims 1 and 8, the examiner finds that Allard teaches the
claimed invention except that Allard does not associate each
visitor who visits the plurality of URLs on the web server with a
qualification. The examiner cites Dedrick as teaching this
feature. The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to
the artisan to modify Allard to include this teaching from
Dedrick [answer, pages 4-7].
With respect to independent claim 1, appellants argue
that Allard does not define a plurality of qualification levels,
does not associate at least one of the qualification levels with
a plurality of URLs located on the web server, and does not
associate each visitor who visits the plurality of URLs located
on the web server with one qualification level [brief, pages 6-
7]. With respect to independent claim 8, appellants argue that
Allard does not disclose any qualification levels or analysis of
traffic hits in conjunction with qualification levels.
Appellants also argue that Dedrick merely discloses a real time
comparison of consumer and advertiser attributes [brief,
page 10].
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007