Appeal No. 2003-0238
Application No. 08/886,349
Appellant first argues (Brief, pages 4-5 and 16, and Reply
Brief, page 3) that claims 49 through 51 recite means plus
function elements, with structure described in the specification,
which the examiner has ignored. However, appellant fails to
specifically point out what elements have been ignored and what
structure in the specification corresponds thereto. Therefore,
we are not persuaded of any error as to claims 49 through 51.
Next appellant contends (Brief, pages 5-7, and Reply Brief,
page 3) that, as to all of the claims, the examiner has provided
no evidence that would suggest combining the two references other
than hindsight gleaned from appellant's specification. However,
as Greenfield Online does not explain how registered participants
are notified for private research studies, it would have been
obvious to the skilled artisan to select a known method for
notifying them. Dacko provides methods of accomplishing
notification, specifically e-mailing the surveys (to the
registered e-mail addresses) or e-mailing (to the registered e-
mail addresses) notification to access a particular (Internet)
address that contains the survey. Thus, the motivation for
combining is in the references themselves and not from a
hindsight analysis.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007