Appeal No. 2004-0228
Application No. 09/348,411
appellants form no part of the claimed subject matter. As such,
appellants’ argument in this regard is not persuasive.
Since appellants have not convinced us of any error in the
examiner’s rationale with regard to claims 15 and 17-20, we will
sustain the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We also will sustain the rejection of claim 16, dependent on
claim 15, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants separately argue the
limitations of claim 16, specifically arguing that Hoyle does not
teach the limitation of an “ad object includes a length of time
to display the given advertisement.” The examiner’s response was
to point to column 2, line 13, of Hoyle, wherein Hoyle
specifically mentions “the duration of display” as one of the
parameters relating to the presentation of the advertising. We
agree with the examiner that this disclosure by Hoyle, albeit in
the background section of the patent disclosure, is clearly
suggestive of displaying a given advertisement for a “length of
time.”
Appellants argue, in the reply brief, that the examiner
never before pointed to this section of Hoyle for a teaching of
displaying an advertisement for a “length of time.” The argument
is not persuasive as this disclosure has always been a part of
Hoyle and was readily ascertainable by appellants from a thorough
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007