Appeal No. 2005-0473
Application No. 09/514,946
Examiner further relies on Roth for teaching targeting ads by
tracking user’s visits to specific web sites (col. 1, lines 30-
38) where the characteristics of the subscribing site is
displayed to the user depending on the customer visiting (col. 2,
lines 20-42) (id.).
Appellant argues that the Gardenswartz sends targeted
advertisement to the consumers’ computers based on the consumers’
offline purchase histories that are sent to a database (brief,
page 6; reply brief, page 3). Appellant further asserts that
Gardenswartz mentions use of online activity only in the
background of the invention and identifies such activity for
providing tailored promotions as disadvantageous (brief, page 7;
reply brief, pages 4 & 5). Additionally, Appellant points out
that the proposed combination of Gardenswartz and Roth lacks
proper motivation and would not have resulted in the claimed
structure as no technical principle to tie the two references is
presented (id.).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner merely
asserts that relying on the disclosed background is proper and
would provide the required suggestion regardless of other
teachings in Gardenswartz (answer, page 7). The Examiner further
argues that the participating web site that displays the targeted
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007