Appeal No. 2004-0228
Application No. 09/348,411
information resource, citing column 16, lines 9-16, and column 4,
lines 5-7, of Hoyle. The examiner explains that the reactive
targeting permits the displaying of advertising that is relevant
to what the user is doing at any particular time, citing column
16, lines 24-37, for a “match list,” i.e., a list of target
advertisements that match with the user’s activities. The
examiner further explains that each of the target advertisements,
i.e., the match object, “implicitly includes an identifier
(identified by the web site being accessed, the keywords used,
the program being executed, etc . . .) Such that the relevant ads
can be identified and displayed to the user” (answer-page 7).
Appellants’ response is that Hoyle teaches real-time,
reactive targeting of ads to users based on a user’s actions, but
that no mention is made of a match object comprising an activity
identifier and an ad object.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 21-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 because, while appellants have not convinced us
of any error in the examiner’s position regarding the claimed
“match list” and “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
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007