Appeal No. 2005-0170
Application No. 09/755,650
prior art in an attempt to reconstruct the claimed invention. Additionally, we find that the
teachings of Lawlor are not as “similar” as the examiner maintains for combining the
teachings. The examiner maintains that “both references disclose system for
presenting personalized messages to a specific mobile [sic] unit and that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill to look to other personal messages systems when
attempting to develop a personalized message system.” (Answer at page 13.) We find
the two teachings to be relatively non-analogous and do not find any teaching of the use
of mobile units as maintained by the examiner. Appellant argues that Lawlor also
teaches that the user at the remote terminal must initialize the communication and
authorization rather than a mobile unit in proximity to an access point.
Appellant argues that the advertisements presented by Rudow are based upon
cart location rather than past transactions. (Brief at page 8.) Appellant argues that the
teaching of Lawlor with respect to financial banking and the use of a historical database
of past transactions and/or demographic information for determination of advertising
would not be combinable with the teaching of Rudow with respect to a dissimilar field of
golf course services. We agree with appellant and do not find that it would have been
obvious to combine the teachings of the two references to achieve the claimed
invention. Moreover, we find no data collected in a database in Rudow which would
have been readily usable by the system to personalize the advertisements. While we
could speculate as to various combinations and uses of doing banking and business
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007