Appeal No. 2004-0228
Application No. 09/348,411
reading of the applied reference. Moreover, appellants were not
prejudiced in any manner by the examiner pointing out this
portion of Hoyle in the answer since appellants had the
opportunity and, in fact, took that opportunity, to file a reply
brief. Appellants had a chance in the reply brief to refute the
examiner’s assertion that Hoyle suggested displaying
advertisements for a length of time.
With regard to independent claim 21, appellants assert that
Hoyle fails to disclose or suggest the claimed “match list” and,
specifically, “the client application receiving a match list from
an ad server after establishment of the first communication
channel, the match list comprising plural match objects
comprising an activity identifier and an ad object, the ad object
comprising a resource locator for a given advertisement and a
resource locator for a click-through associated with the given
advertisement.”
The examiner points to the two-tiered approach to target
advertisement in Hoyle’s client software application 10. The
examiner contends that the first tier is the initial selection of
ad objects based on a user’s demographic information and that the
second tier is the reactive targeting of the advertisement based
on user interaction with a particular application or on a link to
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007