Appeal No. 2004-1627
Application No. 09/207,945
Shaw, on the other hand, provides advocacy messages or
advertisements to users based on the information stored in a
member profile (col. 4, lines 39-45). Although the Examiner
relies on the fact that Shaw assigns an identifier to the
advertisement log (col. 11, lines 56-57), we remain unconvinced
that Shaw can teach or suggest the claimed “appending the stored
record.” In fact, in concluding that adding more transactions to
the log file of Blumenau and logging an advertisement ID in the
server of Shaw provide the necessary teaching and suggestion for
arriving at the claimed subject matter in claim 1, the Examiner
attempts to forge a combination of an evaluation system by
eliminating redundant hit counts that has nothing to do with a
system for distributing specific advertisements to each user.
Thus, assuming, arguendo, that it would have been obvious to
combine Wodarz, Monier and Blumenau with Shaw, as held by the
Examiner, the combination would still fall short of teaching or
suggesting the claimed “appending the stored record of the user
request.” We note that all the other independent claims, similar
to claim 1, require “appending the stored record of the user
request,” in addition to other features. Accordingly, as the
Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness, we cannot sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007