Appeal No. 2005-0473
Application No. 09/514,946
background section in itself teaches the use of cookies for
extracting consumer information.
Roth on the other hand, based on the tracked information
related to the sites a viewer has visited, provides a bidding
opportunity for various advertisers according to a set criteria.
The highest bid from those with matching specifications is
selected and the advertisement specified therein is displayed
(col. 2, lines 54-60).
Therefore, we agree with Appellant that, even based on the
background section and contrary to the Examiner’s assertion
(answer, page 5), it is not clear how the cookies in Gardenswartz
uses the consumer identifier information in conjunction with the
promotion data to send the claimed targeted ad to a subscriber
web site for presentation to the customer. Furthermore, we do
not find any specific arguments presented by the Examiner to
address the points of contention raised by Appellant as to how
Roth would have provided the missing features or to point to any
teaching in the references that would provide a suggestion for
combining Gardenswartz and Roth.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In
reviewing the examiner’s decision on appeal, the Board must
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007