Appeal No. 2004-1828
Application No. 09/094,949
We note that claims 90, 95 and 100 include similar
limitations related to the selection of advertisements based at
least in part upon advertiser feedback which, as discussed above
with respect to claim 85, are absent in the prior art.
Accordingly, since the Examiner has failed to meet the burden of
providing a prima facie case of obviousness, the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 85-88, 90-93, 95-98 and 100 over Kohda and
Cespedes or Harvey cannot be sustained.
With respect to the rejection of the remaining claims, the
Examiner further relies on Microsoft Dictionary for using a
direct proxy server. However, Microsoft Dictionary does not
overcome the deficiencies of Kohda, Cespedes and Harvey, alone or
in combination, as discussed above with respect to claim 85.
Therefore, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 89, 94 and 99 over Kohda, Cespedes and Microsoft
Dictionary or over Kohda, Harvey and Microsoft Dictionary.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007