Appeal No. 2005-0100 Page 3
Application No. 09/962,744
(c) replacing the geographic location input parameter with the direct
marketing area, if the direct marketing area for the geographic location
input parameter was obtained.
Claims 1-18, 23, 24, and 27-38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,295,526 ("Kreiner"). (Final Rejection1 at 3.) Claims 25
and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kreiner.
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
focus on the point of contention therebetween. "[I]nterpret[ting] that the location
description (i.e. Buckhead) in Kreiner's teaching corresponds to the 'direct marketing
area' and the location identifier (i.e. 37) corresponds to the 'geographic location,'"
(Examiner's Answer at 3), the examiner asserts, "Kreiner teaches replacing the
geographic location with direct marketing area (column 14 lines 15-41 and column 17
lines 8-26)." (Id.) The appellants argue, "the integer '37' is not a direct marketing area,
as clearly defined in the Current Application, but is instead simply an identifier
synonymous with the term 'Buckhead,' as stated by Kreiner. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 6.)
1"We advise the examiner to copy his rejections into his examiner’s answers," Ex
parte Metcalf, 67 USPQ2d 1633, 1635 n.1 (Bd.Pat.App.& Int. 2003), rather than merely
referring to "rejection[s] . . . set forth in prior Office Action. . . ." (Examiner’s Answer
at 3.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007